0 YAP, K.

| ATENEO LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary
Atty. Ray Paolo Santiago | Block 1C
WARNING
This document shall not be used as primary reference in
lieu of the annotated books and reviewers it is based on.
ARTICLE III: BILL OF RIGHTS
Ø The government becomes the delicate art of balancing the power of government and the
freedom of the governed.
Ø Inherent (great) powers of the government:
1. Police Power
2. Eminent Domain
3. Taxation
Ø A constitution can only define and delimit the powers and allocate their exercise among
various government agencies. It does not grant the powers of the government.
Primacy of Human Rights and Enforcement
Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2003) – interregnum and human rights : The Constitution is a
source of rights. Did the existence of rights also cease when the 1973 Constitution was not
operative during the interregnum between the EDSA Revolution and the Freedom Constituion?
No. After having established itself as a de jure government, the revolutionary government
assumed the responsibility of faithful compliance with international agreements entered into
such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
• Interregnum – a period when normal government is suspended, especially between
successive reigns or regimes.
SEC. 1. NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF THE LAW. NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS.
Hierarchy of Rights
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Org. v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. (1973) –
strike in malacañang against pasig police : The primacy of human rights over property rights
is recognized. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly
occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and
political institutions.
• When it comes to laws restricting property rights, it is only required that they be not
oppressive, arbitrary, and discriminatory to remain valid.
• However, laws that restrict freedom of speech and assembly require that the same
must pose a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has a
right to protect.
1 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
Due Process In General
• Kinds of due process:
1. Procedural Due Process – mode of procedure which government agencies
must follow in the enforcement and application of laws; the need for notice
and opportunity to be heard.
2. Substantive Due Process – not rigid but grounded on reasonableness.
Tupas v. CA (1991) – late petition : Observance of both procedural and substantive rights is
equally guaranteed by due process and must be followed whatever the source of such rights.
• The tardiness of the petitioners to file an extension for review has forfeited their right
to appeal. Therefore, the cannot claim that they have been denied of due process.
• Petitioners’ argument that they should not be prejudiced by the mistake of their
counsel was not acceptable especially that their counsel is equipped with impressive
credentials.
o Pleadings, as well as remedial laws, should be construed liberally, in order
that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective
claims, and that a possible denial of substantial justice, due to legal
technicalities, may be avoided. (Quibuyen v. CA, 1963)
Procedural Due Process
Judicial Proceedings in General
Banco Español v. Vicente Palanca (1918) – jurisdiction over a person : Jurisdiction over the
person is acquired by the voluntary appearance of a party in court and his submission to its
authority, or it is acquired by the coercive power of legal process exerted over the person.
• Due process in foreclosure proceedings: Property is always assumed to be in the
possession of its owner, in person or by agent, and he may be safely held, under certain
conditions, to be affected with knowledge that proceedings have been instituted for
its condemnation and sale.
• Quasi in rem – property alone is responsible for claim in proceedings, but the
individual is still named as a defendant, unlike in rem.
o Notice to the defendant is not absolutely essential.
o Publication is already deemed sufficient for procedural due process.
• Requisites for judicial due process:
1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed dwith judicial power to
hear and decide the matter before it;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or
over the property subject of the proceedings;
3. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard; and
4. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.
Administrative Due Process in General
Ang Tibay v. CIR (1940) – due process in administrative proceedings : Requisites:
1. Right to hearing including right to present case and submit evidence;
2. Tribunal or body must act on its own independent consideration;
3. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
4. Evidence must be substantial;
5. Decision must be based on evidence presented or at least contained in the record;

6. Decision must have something to support itself; and
7. Board or body must render its decision in a manner where parties can know the various
issues and the reason for decision.
Shu v. Dee (2014) – National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) without judicial or quasi-
judicial power : The functions of this agency are merely investigatory and informative in nature.
It has no judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of granting any relief to any party. It
cannot even determine probable cause.
• The NBI’s findings were still subject to the prosecutor’s and the Secretary of Justice’s
actions for purposes of finding the existence of probable cause.
• There is not absolute absence of opportunity to be heard because the petitioners filed
a Motion for Reconsideration (MR).
Extradition Proceedings
Government of Hong Kong v. Olalia (2007) - extradition : Although there is no law providing
bail to the extradite, there is also no prohibition from exercising his constitutional right to bail.
The right of the extradite to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of the treaties concerning
the promotion and protection of human rights.
• If bail can be granted in deportation cases, it should also be allowed in extradition
cases. Both are administrative proceedings where the innocence and guilt of the
person detained is not an issue.
Arbitration
RCBC v. BDO (2010) – arbitration proceeding : The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (RA
9285) provides for judicial review and vacation of award. Since both parties are Filipino
corporations, they are covered by RA 9285, not the International Chamber of Commerce-
International Court of Justice (ICC-ICJ) rules.
• Vacation of the award was proper because under RA 9285, evident partiality or
corruption in the tribunal or any of its members is a proper ground.
• Furthermore, the rules of RA 9285 provide that the review by the Supreme Court is
not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion granted only for serious and
compelling reasons resulting in grave prejudice to the aggrieved party.
Academic Discipline
ADMU v. Capulong (1993) – fraternity : Requisites for procedural due process for academic
cases: (Guzman v. NU, 1986)
1. Informed in writing of the nature of the accusation;
2. Right to answer charges, optionally with counsel;
3. Right of accused to be informed of evidence against them;
4. Right to adduce own evidence; and
5. Evidence must be considered.
• Educational institutions enjoy academic freedom:
1. Who may teach;
2. Who may be taught;
3. How it is taught; and
4. Who is admitted to study.
Go v. Colegio de San Juan de Letran (2012) – fraternity : The case of Guzman v. NU should
be observed in academic due process rather than the case of Ang Tibay v. CIR. Due process in
2 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
disciplinary cases of students does not entail proceedings similar to judicial or administrative
proceedings.
Deportation Proceedings
Lao Gi v. CA (1989) - deportation : The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is an
act by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable
aliens whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good.
• Requisites:
1. Preliminary investigation to determine if they are aliens;
2. Warrant of arrest issued after finding of probable cause;
3. Charge must specify act or omission;
4. Right to be heard and present evidence upon lawful hearing (no prosecutor;
summary proceeding); and
5. Final declaration of deportation with basis.
Fixing Rates
Maceda v. Energy Regulation Board (1991) – provisional increase : The Energy Regulatory
Board (ERB) is considered as exercising quasi-legislative functions in matters of rate or price
fixing, thus it is not bound by the strict or technical rules of evidence governing court
proceedings.
• ERB is authorized to grant the provisional increase in oil price. The no-hearing
requirement prior to a provisional increase does not violate the due process clause
since oil companies are thereafter entitled to as much relief as the fact alleged
constituting the course of action may warrant.
• ERB rules provide that the Board may except itself from the same and apply suitable
procedures that shall promote the objectives of the Order.
Regulation of Profession
Corona v. UHPAP (1997) - pilots : A professional license becomes a property right after its
issuance. Thereafter, it cannot be taken away without due process, notice or hearing.
• The pre-evaluation cancellation herein prescribed makes the Order unreasonable and
constitutionally infirm because it amounted to a deprivation of property without due
process of law.
Dismissal in Private Sector
Salaw v. NLRC (1991) – admission to constabulary investigation without counsel : Under
the Labor Code, for an employee’s dismissal to be valid, it must be for a just and authorized
cause, and notice and hearing must be observed.
• Requisites:
1. Valid reason;
2. Opportunity to be heard; and
3. Any evidence derived from confession without counsel is inadmissible.
• Right to counsel is a right even in civil and administrative proceedings. The Labor
Code expressly grants the right to counsel.

Ordinance/Statute/Memorandum Circular/Rules
• Government bodies have 2 powers:
o Quasi-legislative – general rules which will affect everybody in a certain
class. No form of notice, hearing or cross-examination required.
o Quasi-judicial – applies exclusively to a specific entity or person. Any
change must be made after due notice and hearing.
People v. Nazario (1988) – manager; void for vagueness : As a rule, a statute or act may be
said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the constitution
in 2 aspects:
1. Violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by
it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and
2. Leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes
an arbitrary flexing of the government muscle.
• However, the act must be “utterly” vague on its face; that is to say, it cannot be
clarified by either a saving clause or by construction.
• Utterly vague – no circumstance would be made applicable to it.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001) – plunder; void for vagueness : Criminal statutes have
general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed
for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially
harmful conduct.
• Facial challenge – traditionally allowed in free speech cases, where the State’s police
power exceeds allowable limitations and intrudes into fundamental rights. The statute
must be void on its face and cannot be saved by any clause or saving construction.
• Overbreadth doctrine – a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which
sweep unnecessarily broad and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
• In terrorem – a legal threat, usually one given in hope of compelling someone to act
without resorting to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution.
Tariff and Customs Code
Feeder v. CA (1991) – forfeiture proceeding : A forfeiture proceeding under the tariff and
customs law is not penal in nature as it does not result in the conviction of the offender. It is
purely civil and administrative in character. The degree of proof required is merely substantial
evidence.
• Substantial evidence – relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
• Sec. 1202 of the Tariff and Customs Code – importation begins when the carrying
vessel enters the jurisdiction of the Philippines with intention to unload therein.
• The right to assistance of counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required
by the Constitution or by law.
o Exception is made in the charter only during custodial investigation of a
person suspected of a crime and during the trial of the accused.
• A corporate entity has no personality to invoke the right to be presumed innocent
which is a right available only to an individual who is an accused in a criminal case.
• Furthermore, subsequent judicial review is granted even if the proceedings are
summary in nature.
3 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
Closure Proceedings
Central Bank v. CA (1993) – relative constitutionality : The “close now and hear later”
scheme is grounded on practical and legal considerations to prevent unwarranted dissipation of
the bank’s assets and as a valid exercise of police power to protect the depositors, creditors,
stockholders and the general public.
• Requisites:
1. Examination by Central Bank;
2. Report by Monetary Board on the bank concerned; and
3. Prima facie evidence about the bank’s bad financial condition.
• The absence of notice and hearing is not a valid ground to annul a Monetary Board
Resolution placing a bank under receivership. The absence of prior notice and hearing
cannot be deemed acts of arbitrariness and bad faith. The grant of subsequent judicial
review satisfies the due process clause.
• Only stockholders of a bank may file an action for annulment of the resolution placing
the bank under receivership and prohibiting it from continuing operations.
• Relative constitutionality – a statute at one time may become void at another time
because of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes
arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication,
is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions. Applies
between CB and Banco Filipino case.
Urban Development and Housing Act (RA 7279)
Perez v. Madrona (2012) – squatting; summary abatement; not nuisance per se : Since
respondent-spouses’ property is not a nuisance per se, it cannot be subjected to summary
abatement. Instead, petitioner should go to court and prove respondents’ supposed violations in
the construction of the concrete fence.
• Nuisance per se – affects the immediate safety of persons and property nd may be
summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity. (Monteverde v. Generoso,
1982)
• Nuisance per accidens – not inherently a nuisance in itself, but may be so because of
the circumstances surrounding it. It may be so proven in a hearing conducted for such
purpose
Cancellation of Property Rights/Privileges
American Inter-fashion v. Office of the President (1991) – garments and textile evaluation
board : A judgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which party is right,
as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon preliminary or final or merely technical points.
• The dismissal of the Garments and Textile Evaluation Board (GTEB) case cannot be
considered as a judgment on the merits as it was based on the withdrawal of Glorious
Sun.
• Subsequent disclosure of the evidence used in the former GTEB Resolution did not
cure the defect because it was evidenced that it was arbitrarily made.
British American Tobacco v. Camacho (2008-2009) – expansive tax category : The
classification freeze provision addressed Congress’ administrative concerns in the simplification
of tax administration of sin products, elimination of potential areas for abuse and corruption in
tax collection, buoyant and stable revenue generation, and ease of projection of revenues.

• The reclassification of Lucky Strike cigarettes was not arbitrarily made. The petitioner
allowed its initial classification based on the suggested retail price of the cigarettes,
without prejudice to a subsequent reclassification based on its actual selling price.
Due Process in
Judicial Proceedings
Extradition Proceedings
Deportation Proceedings
Administrative
Proceedings
Fixing of Rates
Dismissal in Private
Sector
Academic Discipline
3. Right of accused to be informed of evidence against
them;
4. Right to adduce own evidence; and
5. Evidence must be considered.
Requisites/Rules
1. Court or tribunal with judicial power to hear and Substantive Due Process
determine cases;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the • Liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of public health, public order
and safety, or anything else within the scope of police power.
person or property;
3. Opportunity to be heard; and
4. Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing. US v. Toribio (1910) – carabao slaughterhouse : The determination of the legislature on what
is a proper exercise of police power is subject to the supervision of the courts.
1. Not entitled to notice and hearing before issuance of
warrant; • Requisites:
2. Entitled to notice and hearing during the proceedings; 1. Determine what the interests of the public require (lawful purpose); and
3. Bail/provisional liberty is generally not given unless 2. Determine what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests
under special circumstances: (reasonable means).
a. When extradite is not a flight risk; or Ynot v. IAC (1987) – transport of carabao : The due process clause is violated when the
b. Special humanitarian considerations. owner of the property confiscated is denied of the right to be heard and is immediately
1. Preliminary investigation to determine if they are condemned and punished.
aliens; • Immediate confiscation by the police officers of the carabao without a hearing for the
2. Warrant of arrest issued after finding of just cause; purpose is unconstitutional.
3. Charge must specify act or omission;
4. Right to be heard and present evidence upon lawful Churchill v. Rafferty (1915) – billboards as nuisance : Police power may regulate and restrict
hearing (no prosecutor; summary proceeding); and uses of private property when devoted to advertising which is offensive to the sight.
5. Final declaration of deportation with basis. • 2 kinds of injunction:
1. Right to hearing including right to present case and 1. Preliminary – issued any time before final judgment.
submit evidence; 2. Final – a granted relief at the termination of the trial.
2. Tribunal or body must act on its own independent • Standards for Police Power:
consideration; 1. Lawful purpose – for the general welfare of the community; and
3. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented; 2. Lawful method – reasonable, non-oppressive and non-arbitrary means and
4. Evidence must be substantial; methods employed in connection to the accomplishment of the purpose.
5. Decision must be based on evidence presented or at
least contained in the record; People v. Fajardo (1958) – aesthetic purpose; blocks the view : The state may not, under the
6. Decision must have something to support itself; and guise of Police Power, permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and
7. Board or body must render its decision in a manner practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the
where parties can know the various issues and the community.
reason for decision. • An ordinance may be invalid if:
1. Fails to state any policy to guide or limit the mayor’s discretion;
1. Notice and hearing (important for quasi-judicial 2. Expresses no purpose to be attained by requiring a permit;
bodies because without it the courts would lack 3. Enumerates no condition for its grant or refusal; or
jurisdiction); 4. Lacks standards, conferring upon the mayor arbitrary and unrestricted
2. Rate must be reasonable and just; and power.
3. Rate must not be confiscatory and oppressive. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operator v. City of Manila (1967) – curb immorality;
1. Valid reason; license fee : Congress may legislate morality through sin taxes.
2. Opportunity to be heard; and • On the license fees for non-useful occupations, they are incidental to police power and
3. Any evidence derived from confession without municipal corporations are allowed a much wider discretion in fixing the amount of
counsel is inadmissible. license fees. The desirability of imposing restraint upon the number of persons who
might engage in non-useful enterprises is an important factor in the determination of
1. Informed in writing of the nature of the accusation; the amount of this kind of fee.
2. Right to answer charges, optionally with counsel;
4 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. (2005) – transfer or change of immoral business : To compel
such businesses to leave the vicinity or to change the nature of their business is unduly
oppressive.
• Test of Valid Ordinance:
1. Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. Must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. Must not prohibit, but regulate;
5. Must be general and consistent with public policy; and
6. Must be reasonable.
White Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009) – wash rates banned : To ban the wash-
rates in hotels/motels/etc. unduly restricts the rights of its consumers.
• Overbreadth doctrine - a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which
sweep unnecessarily broad and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
• Test of valid ordinance was used.
• Standards for Judicial Review:
1. Strict Scrutiny – the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than
substantial, government interest and on the absence of less restrictive means
for achieving that interest; used today to test the validity of laws dealing
with the regulation of speech, gender or race and other fundamental rights.
2. Rational Basis – laws are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate
government interest.
3. Intermediate Review – government interest is extensively examined and the
availability of less restrictive measures is considered.
Balacuit v. CFI (1988) – discount to children in movie house : Legislature may not, under
the guise of protecting public interest, arbitrarily interfere with private businesses, which is a
property right of the owner. Theaters, cinemas and other ehibitions cannot be considered public
utilities.
• It may ease the burden of parents, but the theater operator will bear the loss.
• Children would be encouraged more to go to the movies rather than to be in school.
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties (1994) – local ordinance against PAGCOR : The morality of
gambling is not a justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal per se (unlike jueteng and monte).
The legislature may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it without limitation, or it may
prohibit some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider
sufficient.
• The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those
of the latter. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) Charter is
the proper authority, not the delegated legislative power to the Local Government
Units (LGU).
Bennis v. Michigan (1995) – confiscated car : Owner’s interest in a property may be forfeited
even though the owner did not know that it was used as such and this is not a violation of the
due process clause.
Cruzan v. Dir. of Health of Missouri (1990) – informed euthanasia : No clear and convincing
evidence was present that would evidence that the incompetent patient would rather want to die
rather than to “live life as a vegetable.” The State has an interest in the life of a person. It is
easier that the patient be treated first before knowing her true intent, rather than killing her and
not know her true intent at all.
5 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
• Doctrine of Informed Consent – a patient generally possesses the right not to consent,
that is, to refuse treatment.
• Substituted judgment standard – to determine an incompetent individual’s decision
given the circumstances, there must be clear and convincing evidence to negate the
preservation of life.
Chavez v. Romulo (2004) – gun ban : The Second Amendment of the US Constitution pertains
to the right to bear arms as the collective right to take arms in defense of the State, not the
citizens’ individual rights to possess arms.
• In the Philippines, the right to bear arms is merely a statutory right (Firearm Law).
Possession of firearms in the Philippines is an exception, not a right.
• Application of test of valid exercise of police power:
1. The interest of the public in general herein is their safety which is threatened
by the proliferation of crimes, particularly those committed by the New
People’s Army (NPA).
2. On the reasonable means, the issuance does not absolutely prohibit the
possession of firearms. What it proscribes is merely the carrying of firearms
outside of residence, and those who wish to carry such outside may re-apply
for a new Permit to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence (PTCFOR).
GSIS v. Montescarlos (2004) – survivorship pension claim : The proviso is unduly oppressive
in outrightly denying a dependent spouse’s claim for survivorship pension if the dependent
spouse contracted marriage to the pensioner within the 3-year prohibited period.
Chavez v. COMELEC (2004) – candidate billboards : The Comission on Elections
(COMELEC) is expressly authorized to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all
media communication or information to ensure equal opportunity, time , and space, all aimed at
the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
Lucena Grand Terminal v. JAC Liner (2005) – exclusive franchise : Local Government may
be considered as having properly exercised its police power only if there is a concurrence of a
lawful subject and lawful method.
• Application of test of valid exercise of police power:
1. Traffic congestion is a menace to public safety and thus, a public concern.
2. The second requisite is not satisfied. The ordinances are overly broad. The
real cause of traffic is the indiscriminate loading and unloading which
impedes traffic. Terminals are not public neuisance.
• Unless a thing is a nuisance per se, it may not be abated via an ordinance without
judicial proceedings.
Bayan v. Ermita (2006) – no permit, no rally : B.P. 880 is a valid exercise of police power
because it is content-neutral regulation. Furthermore, Freedom Parks are made available for
rallyists without need of a permit.
• Content-neutral regulation merely regulates the time, place and manner of the subjects
of the former.
• Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) is unconstitutional because it is a prior
restraint of the right of the people peaceably to assemble by dispensing of the
maximum tolerance requirement prior to dispersal of rallyists.
KMU v. Director General (2006) – uniform ID system : Valid exercise of the President’s
exercise of the faithful execution clause, not a usurpation of legislative power because there are

already laws prescribing expense-saving activities by the government. Furthermore, no violation
of the right to privacy because the information required are those already provided for in
government IDs.
Mirasol v. DPWH (2006) – motorcycle prohibition : The use of public highways by motor
vehicles is subject to regulation as an exercise of the police power of the State. The sole standard
in measuring its exercise is reasonableness. What is “reasonable” is not subject to exact
definition or scientific formulation. No invalid classification of motorcycles with small engine
displacement as it is hazardous to the rider’s safety and highway-users.
Parreño v. COA (2007) – pension banned for US citizens : Before a right to retirement
benefits or pension vests in an employee, he must have met the stated conditions of eligibility
with respect to the nature of employment, age, and length of service. It is only upon retirement
that military personnel acquire a vested right to retirement benefits.
St. Luke’s v. NLRC (2007) – regulation of profession : While the right of the workers to
security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated
pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order,
safety, and the general welfare of the people.
MMDA v. Viron (2007) – power of MMDA : The Metro-Manila Development Authority
(MMDA) cannot order the closure of respondents’ terminals not only because no authority to
implement the project has been granted nor legislative or police power been delegated to it, but
also because it does not satisfy the standards of valid police power.
• Application of test of valid exercise of police power:
o Less intrusive measures such as curbing the streets for parking and
passenger pick-up points might be even more effective in easing the traffic
situation.
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (2008) – writ of amparo (“protection” in Spanish)
: The continuing threat on the life of the Manalo brothers is apparent. This threat vitiates their
free will because they are forced to limit their movements and activities. Threats to liberty,
security, and life are actionable through a petition for a Writ of Amparo.
• Coverage of which is to:
1. Extralegal killings – killings committed without due process of law.
2. Enforced disappearances – an arrest, detention or abduction by the
government; refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts places
him outside the protection of the law.
• Because of its summary nature, only substantial evidence is required for its issuance.
Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo (2010) – writ of amparo; habeas data : The Writ of Habeas
Data is a judicial remedy for enforcing a right to privacy, most especially the rifht to
informational privacy of individuals. It operates to protect a person’s right to control information
regarding himself, particularly, in the instances where such information is being collected
through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.
• Indispensable element: A showing, at least substantially, that a violation or threatened
violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security has happened.
• Doctrine of Command Responsibility - a form of responsibility for omission to act: a
superior may be held criminally responsible under that doctrine where, despite his
awareness of the crimes of subordinates, he culpably fails to fulfill his duties to
prevent and punish these crimes.
6 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
Meralco v. Lim (2010) – writ of habeas data : Habeas Data is designated to protect by means
of judicial complaint the image, privacy, honor, information and freedom of information of an
individual. It is meant to provide a forum to enforce one’s right t the truth and to informational
privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a person’s right to life, liberty, and
security against abuse in this age of information technology.
Remman Enterprises v. Professional Regulatory Board (2014) – real estate developer’s
right to dispose property : Professionalizing the real estate service is a valid exercise of police
power, which has general welfare for its object, considering that real property transactions are
susceptible to manipulation and corruption, and real estate service practitioners serve a vital role
in promoting overall national progress.
• As between general welfare and property rights, the latter must yield.
Disini v. Sec. of Justice (2014) – cybercrime law : The cyberspace is a boon to the need of the
current generation for greater information and facility of communication. But all is not well with
the system since it could not filter out a number of persons of ill will who would want to use
cyberspace technology for mischiefs and crimes. R.A. 10175 hurdles the legitimate purpose and
reasonable means test.
Imbong v. Ochoa (2014) – reproductive health bill : A statute or act suffers from the defect
of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to its application. The purpose to provide Filipinos,
especially the poor and the marginalized, access and information to the full range of modem
family planning methods, and to ensure that its objective to provide for the peoples' right to
reproductive health be achieved is valid.
Garcia v. Drilon (2013) – violence against women and children act : The issuance of a
temporary restraining order (TPO) is a preventive measure. Even though it is issued ex parte,
the court is obliged to order the immediate issuance and service of the notice upon the
respondent and require him to file an opposition within 5 days. The essence of due process is
the opportunity to be heard.
Caram v. Segui (2014) – adoption not subject to amparo : The extraordinary Writ of Amparo
does not apply in cases where the whereabouts of a person were never concealed in the first
place.
Equal Protection
• 3 levels of tests for equal protection:
1. Strict scrutiny standard – used when there is an infringement of fundamental
rights. The State must show a compelling state interest in order to sustain
validity.
2. Immediate scrutiny standard – used in special cases such as gender and
legitimacy.
3. Rational basis test – there must be a showing of rational connection between
the right curtailed and the State’s interest. Used when the case involves
economic/property rights.
People v. Cayat (1939) – natives in baguio : As there can be no true equality before the law,
if there is, in fact, no equality in education, the government has endeavored, by appropriate
measures, to raise their culture and civilization and secure for them the benefits of their progress,

with the ultimate end in view of placing them with their Christian brothers on the basis of true
equality.
• Requisites of a Valid Classification:
1. Substantial distinction;
2. Germane to the purpose of the law;
3. Not limited to existing conditions only; and
4. Apply equally to all members of the same class.
• Application of requisites of a valid classification:
1. This distinction is unquestionably reasonable, for the Act was intended to
meet the peculiar conditions existing in the non-Christian tribes.
2. Designed to insure peace and order in and among the non-Christian tribes.
the free use of highly intoxicating liquors by the non-Christian tribes have
often resulted in lawlessness and crimes, thereby hampering the efforts of
the government to raise their standard of life and civilization.
3. The law is not limited in its application to conditions existing at the time of
its enactment. It is intended to apply for all times as long as those conditions
exist.
4. That it may be unfair in its operation against a certain number non-
Christians by reason of their degree of culture, is not an argument against
the equality of its application.
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho (1978) – employment permit : The protection the equal
protection clause guarantees is applicable to both citizens and aliens.
Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City (1968) – law specific for Ormoc Sugar Central : Laws
should not target a single and exclusive company in a way that subsequent companies of the
same nature shall not be affected by the law.
Central Bank Employees v. BSP (2004) – classification based on salary; relaive
constitutionality : Statutes may be adjudged unconstitutional because of their effect in
operation. If a law has the effect of denying the equal protection of the law, it is unconstitutional.
• Different classifications of employees in terms of their respective wage structures
violates the equal protection clause if no substantial distinctions are shown between
the groups.
• Application of constitutional relativity – since the present circumstances show that the
rank-and-file employees of other government agencies were exempted from the Salary
Standardization Law (SSL). Thus, there was no reason not to exempt them as well.
Yrasegui v. PAL (2008) – obese flight attendant : There is substantial distinction between
obese cabin attendants against other given that the former’s immobility can impede passengers
form evacuating the aircraft in cases of emergency.
People v. Siton (2009) – vagrancy : Penal statutes do not go against the equal protection clause
as they do not punish people for who they are, rather, what is punished is what they do or how
they conduct themselves.
League of Cities v. COMELEC (2009) – pending bills for cityhood laws : The cities
enumerated in the cityhood laws have substantial difference against those not enumerated given
their capability to become cities had already been satisfied before the amendment from
P200,000,000 was changed to P100,000,000.
7 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
Quinto v. COMELEC (2010) – appointive official : There is substantial difference between
appointive and elective officials as the former hold their office by virtue of their designation
thereto by an appointing authority while the latter occupy their office by virtue of the mandate
of the electorate.
SEC. 2. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND
EFFECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF WHATEVER NATURE AND FOR
ANY PURPOSE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE, AND NO SEARCH WARRANT OR WARRANT OF ARREST
SHALL ISSUE EXCEPT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BE DETERMINED PERSONALLY BY THE JUDGE
AFTER EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF THE COMPLAINANT AND WITNESSES
HE MAY PRODUCE, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND THE
PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.
When is a Search a Search
SJS v. DDB (2008) – mandatory drug testing : The constitutionality as to political candidates,
students, employees, and persons charged with an offense were discussed as follows:
• Political candidates (unconstitutional) – the COMELEC Resolution passed unduly
enlarges the qualification requirements in Art. VI Sec. 3 of the Constitution. The same
may not be expanded by law.
• Students (constitutional) – schools as loco parentis – the drug test prescribed under
Sec. 36(c), (d), and (f) of RA 9165 for secondary and tertiary level students and public
and private employees, while mandatory, is a random and suspicionless arrangement.
• Employees (constitutional) – the employees’ privacy interest in an office is to a large
extent circumscribed by the company’s work policies, the collective bargaining
agreement, if any, entered into by management and the bargaining unit, and the
inherent right of the employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace.
Thus, reduced.
• Persons charged with an offense (unconstitutional) – when persons suspected of
committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their
will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutor’s
office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not
necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy.
Requisites of a Valid Warrant
People v. Veloso (1925) – John Doe warrant : • It is the prevailing rule that a description of a
place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended. A “John Doe warrant” is valid so long as it states a
particular description of the person to be arrested, that the officers may be able distinguish such
person from others.
Stonehill v. Diokno (1967) – no specific offense designated in warrant; only name of law
violated; invalidity of general warrant : It was impossible for the judges who issued the
warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the
introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular
acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws.
• Petitioners herein cannot invoke right to privacy because the papers belong to the
corporation, and they cannot invoke the privacy of the corporation as to the papers
seized.

Central Bank v. Morfe (1967) – no particular individuals were named in the application
for a warrant organization : The failure of the witness to mention particular individuals does
not necessarily prove that he had no personal knowledge of specific illegal transactions of the
Organization, for the witness might be acquainted with specific transactions, even if the names
of the individuals concerned were unknown to him. The records suggest clearly that the
transactions objected to by the Bank constitute the general pattern of the business of the
Organization.
Bache & Co. v. Ruiz (1971) – personal examination by the judge for search warrant : The
reading of the stenographic notes to respondent Judge did not constitute sufficient compliance
with the constitutional mandate and the rule; for by that manner respondent Judge did not have
the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to propound
initial and follow-up questions which the judicial mind, on account of its training, was in the
best position to conceive.
• A search warrant particularly describes when:
1. The description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily
allow.
2. The description expresses a conclusion of fact – not of law – by which the
warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure.
3. The things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the
offense for which the warrant is being issued.
Soliven v. Makasiar (1988) – personal examination by the judge for warrant of arrest : The
judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.
• Following established doctrine and procedure, the judge shall:
1. Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by
the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof,
issue the warrant of arrest.
2. If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.
Lim, Sr. v. Judge Felix (1991) – murder in Masbate; warrant issued in Manila : A judge
may issue a warrant of arrest by simply relying on the prosecution’s certification and
recommendation that a probable cause exists if it is accompanied with the records sustaining it.
• In this case, however, the records were not with the certification, but were in Masbate,
when respondent judge issued the assailed warrant of arrest.
People v. Francisco (2002) – address stated in the search warrant is different from the
actual address where the search was made : A description of a place to be searched is
sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the
place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or
description known to the locality that leads the officer unerringly to it satisfies the constitutional
requirement.
• In this case, however, from the application for a search warrant as well as the search
warrant itself, the police officer serving the warrant cannot, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended precisely because it was wrongly described
as No. 122, although it may have been located on the same street as No. 120. Even the
description of the house by police asset Baradilla referred to that house located at No.
122 M. Hizon St., not at No. 120 M. Hizon St.
8 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
Warrantless Searches and Seizures
MHP Garments v. CA (1994) – selling boy scout uniforms without authority : This
provision protects not only those who appear to be innocent but also those who appear to be
guilty but are nevertheless to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. In the case at
bench, the seizure was made without any warrant.
• The progression of time between the receipt of the information and the raid of the
stores of private respondents shows there was sufficient time for petitioners and the
PC raiding party to apply for a judicial warrant.
People v. CFI of Rizal (1980) – blue Dodge car with untaxed watches : Searches and seizures
without warrant are valid if made upon probable cause, that is, upon a belief reasonably arising
out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains
that which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.
• The probable guilt cannot be negated simply because he was not held administratively
liable (by the Collector of Custosm). The Collector's final declaration that the articles
are not subject to forfeiture does not detract his findings that untaxed goods were
transported in respondents' car and seized from their possession by agents of the law.
Roan v. Gonzales (1986) – firearms being unloaded; judge merely asked the applicant if
he knew of and understood the contents of his application : Mere affidavits of the
complainant and his witnesses are not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions
in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record.
• Respondent judge also declared that he saw no need to have applicant’s deposition
taken as it was based on the information provided by his witnesses. However, this
would imply that the issuance of the warrant was on the basis of mere hearsay and not
information personally known to the applicant.
People v. Malmstedt (1991) – Swedish national in Baguio/Sagada : Accused was searched
and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). A crime was actually being
committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto.
• Boarding a bus at a checkpoint is valid, so long as the officers do not interrogate them
until there is probable cause – herein, accused’s bulge and inability to produce his
passport raised reasonable suspicion.
• Warrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared by this
Court as valid, because of existence of probable cause, where:
1. The smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused;
or
2. Where the accused was acting suspiciously, and attempted to flee.
Posadas v. CA (1990) – buri bag : The assailed search and seizure may still be justified as akin
to a "stop and frisk" situation whose object is either to determine the identity of a suspicious
individual or to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain
more information.
• The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee
with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal
in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.
Aniag v COMELEC (1994) – gun ban; checkpoint : An extensive search without warrant
could only be resorted to if the officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause
to believe before the search that either the motorist was a law offender or that they would find

the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of a crime in the vehicle to be
searched.
• The records do not show that the manner by which the package was bundled led the
PNP to suspect that it contained firearms. There was no mention either of any report
regarding any nervous, suspicious or unnatural reaction from Arellano when the car
was stopped and searched.
• There is no valid waiver when the "implied acquiescence," if there was any, could not
be more than a mere passive conformity on the driver’s part to the search, and
"consent" given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent within the
purview of the constitutional guaranty.
Malacat v. CA (1997) – Muslim men with eyes moving very fast : There was nothing in
petitioner’s behavior or conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other
than that his eyes were moving very fast – an observation which was doubtful because the police
officers were nowhere near the petitioner, and it was already 6:30pm.
• Differentiated from Posadas, there was probable cause therein that the accused had
something in his buri bag and attempted to flee. Herein, the bulge was not enough for
a probable cause considering that the bulge could not have been visible to the
policemen before they approached the accused.
People v. Aruta (1998) – pointing at accused crossing the street : There was no personal
knowledge of the police officers that the accused was committing a crime, they were only
prompted by the pointing of finger of their informant.
• Moreover, the police officers had sufficient time to procure a search warrant or
warrant of arrest, there being information about the accused.
Asuncion v. CA (1999) – Vic Vargas “Binggoy” : A warrantless search of a moving vehicle
is justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
• There was probable cause as the same police officers had a previous encounter with
the petitioner, who was then able to evade arrest.
PROBLEM: I’m a PDEA agent. I received a tip from a source that 20kg of shabu will be
transported in a blue Toyota Corolla ABC 123, coming from Sagada, passing through TPLEX.
PDEA set up a checkpoint. The car approached the checkpoint. I saw that there was a lone
female driver, and I requested the trunk to be opened – there were powdery remnants therein. I
asked her to step out of the vehicle, I searched the vehicle and found the shabu.
• Invalid, because there was at least 24 hours to procure a search warrant.
• In case the tip was received on the day itself, it is still invalid because there should
only be a visual search. In the example, there was no consent given to search inside
the vehicle. Furthermore, there was no probable cause for that vehicle to be suspected
of carrying shabu even if it comes from a very reliable source. Even opening of the
trunk cannot be ordered.
People v. Canton (2002) – airport security check : The scope of a search pursuant to airport
security procedure is not confined only to search for weapons under the "Terry search" doctrine.
• Terry search – a case where a police officer approaches a person who is acting
suspiciously, for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior in line with the
general interest of effective crime prevention and detection. To assure himself that the
person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly
and fatally be used against him, he could validly conduct a carefully limited search of
9 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
the outer clothing of such person to discover weapons which might be used to assault
him.
• In the present case, the search was made pursuant to routine airport security procedure,
which is allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235, "Holder hereof and his
hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited materials
or substances.” Furthermore, there was a "Notice to All Passengers" located at the
final security checkpoint at the departure lounge.
Disini v. Sec. of Justice (2014) – Anti-Cybercrime Law of 2012: The Court made the
following rulings on the constitutionality of its provisions:
• Sec. 12. Real-time collection of data (unconstitutional) – the phrase “due cause” with
regard to the real- time collection of data (general gathering of data) was vague, and
that such was akin to a general warrant. In addition, the Court did not see a connection
between the collection of such data and the probable commission of a crime.
• Sec. 14. Disclosure of computer data (constitutional) – the Court upheld the provision
such that it merely laid down the procedure for the enforcement of a duly issued
warrant.
• Sec. 15. Search, seizure and examination of computer data (constitutional) – This
section was assailed for allegedly supplanting search and seizure procedures.
However, the Court saw that it only enumerated the duties of law enforcement to
ensure proper collection, preservation and use of data seized by virtue of a warrant.
• Sec. 19. Restricting or blocking access to computer data (unconstitutional) – the DOJ
order cannot replace a judicial warrant. Not to mention, such provision violates the
freedom of speech.
Searches and seizures “of whatever nature and for whatever purpose.”
Material Distributors v. Natividad (1949) – subpoena of books and papers : The orders in
question, issued in virtue of the provisions of Rule 21 (subpoena), pertain to a civil procedure
that cannot be identified or confused with the unreasonable searches prohibited by the
Constitution.
• The constitutional guarantee of privacy of communication and correspondence will
not be violated, because the trial court has power and jurisdiction to issue the order
for the production and inspection of the books and documents in question in virtue of
the constitutional guarantee making an express exception in favor of the disclosure of
communication and correspondence upon lawful order of a court of justice.
Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) – housing inspection; administrative inspection : A
search of private property without proper consent is “unreasonable” unless it has been
authorized by a valid search warrant.
• On the need for probable cause, the only way to implement this is through routine
periodic inspections of all structures. Probable cause then is based on an appraisal of
a certain area as a whole. What is required is probable cause arising from knowledge
of condition of the district or area, and not necessarily individual buildings.
• Petitioner had constitutional right to insist that the inspectors obtain a warrant to
search and appellant may not be convicted for refusing consent to the inspection. It
may amount to a consented search if petitioner merely allowed the search.

Warrantless Arrests
Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago (1988) – pedophile foreigners; surveillance : Warrants of arrest
in deportation proceedings are solely for the purpose of investigation and before a final order of
deportation is issued.
• The Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation may issue a warrant of arrest. It
is an exception, but there must be a deportation proceeding. Warrant could not be
dependent on a final deportation order, as long as deportation proceedings are already
ongoing.
o However, if a warrant was issued during investigation (before filing of
deportation proceeding), it is invalid.
People v. Aminnudin (1988) – descending from boat : Without the evidence of the marijuana
allegedly seized from the accused, the case of the prosecution must fall. That evidence cannot
be admitted, and should never have been considered by the trial court for the simple fact is that
the marijuana was seized illegally. It is the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
• To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking
from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the
marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the
furtive finger that triggered his arrest.
People v. Burgos (1986) – accused was plowing his field; wife pointed to firearms : At the
time of the appellant's arrest, he was not in actual possession of any firearm or subversive
document. Neither was he committing any act which could be described as subversive. He was,
in fact, plowing his field at the time of the arrest.
• The trial court justified the arrest of the accused without any warrant as falling under
one of the instances when arrests may be validly made without a warrant. Rule 113,
Section 6.
o However, there is no such personal knowledge in this case. Whatever
knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers, it came in its entirety
from the information furnished by Masamlok.
• The arrest being unlawful, the search and seizure which transpired afterwards could
not likewise be deemed legal as being mere incidents to a valid arrest.
Umil v. Ramos (1990) – subversion as continuing crime : Being continuing offenses, the
arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses which
requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause before the issuance of
a judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable.
Umil v. Ramos (1991) [MR] – subversion as continuing crime : Mere suspicion of being a
Communist Party member or a subversive is absolutely not a ground for the arrest without
warrant of the suspect.
Go v. CA (1992) – driver shot in Wilson St., San Juan : Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6)
days after the shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers obviously were not present, within
the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the
"arrest" effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected "when the
shooting had in fact just been committed" within the meaning of Section 5(b).
• Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts
indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan.
10
• Petitioner was not arrested at all. When he walked into San Juan Police Station,
accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he in fact placed himself at the disposal of the police
authorities. He did not state that he was "surrendering" himself, in all probability to
avoid the implication he was admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan or that he was
otherwise guilty of a crime.
People v. Mengote (1992) – men looking from side to side : The instances of a valid
warrantless arrest do not apply herein.
• In flagrante delicto does not apply because at the time of the arrest in question, the
accused- appellant was merely "looking from side to side" and "holding his abdomen,"
according to the arresting officers themselves.
• Hot pursuit does not apply because they did not know then what offense, if at all, had
been committed and neither were they aware of the participation therein of the
accused. It was only later, after Danganan had appeared at the Police headquarters,
that they learned of the robbery in his house and of accused’s supposed involvement
therein.
• Accused was not an escapee.
Manalili v. CA (1997) – tricycle; red eyes : Where a police officer observes an unusual conduct
which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous,
where in the course of investigating this behavior he identified himself as a policeman and makes
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his
reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and
others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in
an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
• In the case at hand, Patrolman Espiritu and his companions observed during their
surveillance that appellant had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk along the
Caloocan City Cemetery, which according to police information was a popular
hangout of drug addicts.
Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan (1998) – violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act :
A judge fails in his bounden duty if he relies merely on the certification or the report of the
investigating officer.
• The Court laid down the duties of a judge:
1. The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest
should be issued against the accused, i.e., whether there is a necessity
for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the
ends of justice;
2. The judge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding
probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest; and
3. The judge must have sufficient supporting documents (such as the
complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements of
witnesses or transcripts of stenographic notes, if any) upon which to
make his independent judgment or, at the very least, upon which to
verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable
cause.
• The two cited documents were the product of somebody else's determination,
insufficient to support a finding of probable cause by the Sandiganbayan. Hence, the
warrant of arrest issued by respondent court on February 17, 1995 against herein
petitioner is palpably invalid.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

Searches and Seizures
General Rule:
• Search warrant – an order in writing issued in the name of the Republic signed by the judge and directed to a peace officer commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and to bring it to court.
• A search must be made pursuant to a search warrant issued by the judge.
• Requisites for a valid warrant:
1. Issued upon probable cause.
a. Probable cause – such facts or circumstances that would lead a discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed, and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place to be searched.
2. Personal examination by the judge.
3. Examined under oath and affirmation.
4. Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
5. Not for more than one offense.
• The applicant needs to show:
1. That the items sought may in fact be seized by virtue of being connected with criminal activity; and
2. That the items will be found in the place to be searched.
• Generally, only articles particularly described in the warrant may be seized. What may be seized:
1. Property subject of an offense;
2. Stolen or embezzled property and other proceeds or fruits of an offense; and
3. Used or intended to be used as a means of committing a crime.
• If an information/tip was received at least 24hrs earlier, or within a period when the officers may validly procure a search warrant, but fail to do so, the search is invalid.
Exceptions Exceptions to the Exception
1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest • Valid warrantless arrests according to the Rules of
Criminal Procedure (Section 5, Rule 113):
1. In flagrante delicto
2. Hot pursuit
3. Escapee
• Arresting officer may search:
1. Arrestee’s person to:
(a) discover or remove weapons; and
(b) seize evidence to prevent concealment or
destruction; and
2. The area within the immediate control of the
arrestee.
• Lawful arrest is generally pursuant to a warrant of
arrest issued by a judge.
• There be first a lawful arrest before search can be
made; the process cannot be reversed.
2. Search of moving vehicles • Requisites: • In a checkpoint, there is yet no probable cause in order to “zero in” on a
1. Vehicle is neither searched; nor its occupants specific vehicle.
subjected to a body search; and • Customs search in a moving vehicle may be a thorough search.
2. Inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to • More thorough search may be done if the owner of the vehicle consents
a visual search. thereto.
• Limited to a visual search of the vehicle only. • Officers are allowed to enter buses and make a visual search thereon. They
• Checkpoints may be set up pursuant to are not allowed to ask questions unless there is reasonable suspicion.
information received. • Thorough search valid only if there is probable cause that:
• Officers are not allowed to enter the vehicle. 1. The motorist was a law offender; or
2. They would find the evidence of a crime during the visual search.
11 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

3. Seizure in plain view
4. Customs searches
5. Consented searches (Waiver)
6.. Stop and Frisk (Terry search)
• Requisites:
1. Prior justification for an intrusion based on
the valid warrantless arrest in which the
police are legally present in the pursuit of
their official duty.
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered
by the police who have the right to be there.
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent.
4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search.
• Plain view – if the object itself is plainly exposed
to sight.
• Officers of the Bureau of Customs are authorized • People v. CFI of Rizal – even if the Collector of Customs finds that the
to make custom searches. prosecution failed to present the quantum of evidence to warrant the
• There is usually either a warrant from the forfeiture, there is still a presumption of regularity conducted by the RASAC
commissioner or an intelligence report. officers in searching the vehicle upon an information that it contained
• May be a thorough search. untaxed goods.
• There must be reasonable cause to believe that • Tariff and Customs code provides that search may be effected by a customs
there are dutiable articles. officer without a warrant EXCEPT when made in a dwelling house.
• Purpose is to verify whether Custom duties and
taxes were paid for their importation.
• Requisites of a valid waiver: • People v. Aruta – does not apply if the consent is a mere passive conformity
1. Accused has a right; given under intimidating or coercive circumstances.
2. Accused has knowledge of such right; and
3. Accused expressly or impliedly waives such
right.
• Requisites:
1. Police officer observes an unusual conduct
which leads him reasonably to conclude in
light of his experience that criminal activity
may be afoot and that the persons with whom
he is dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous;
2. In the course of investigating, he identified
himself as a policeman and makes reasonable
inquiries; and
3. Nothing in the initial stages of the encounter
serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his
own or others’ safety.
• Requisites for checkpoints:
1. Exceptional circumstances
2. Fixed area
3. Visual search
4. Occupants not subjected to body search
• Something must arouse suspicion.
12 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

7. Exigent circumstances •
Example given by Fr. Bernas was that a
surveillance team investigating attempted coup
d’etat was fired upon by rebels which prompted
the team to inspect the building where the rebels
came from.
Other Exceptions Exceptions to the Exception
8A. When made by a private individual – Standard • Made pursuant to standard operating procedure • Police officer cannot use a private person (security guard) to effect a stop-
Operating Procedure (SOP) (SOP), especially of a business. and-frisk, unless the officer was just a passer-by and the private person shouts
• People v. Marti – inspecting packages was within that someone was carrying firearms or drugs.
the SOP of his business of shipping goods.
8B. When made by a private individual – Security • There is a provision in the ticket or notice/sign in
Checks (ex. airports) the airport that passengers will be searched.
• Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235, "Holder
hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject
to search for, and seizure of, prohibited materials
or substances.”
9. Subpoena duces tecum Material Distributors v. Natividiad – Sec. 2 Art. III of
the Constitution should not be confused with subpoena
under the Rules of Court.
10. Administrative inspection • Camara v. Municipal Court – a warrant is • If not permitted by the owner, or if the owner requires a warrant.
ACTUALLY NEEDED.
• The EXCEPTION is if the owner of the place to
be search consents to the same.

Arrests
General Rule:
• Warrant of arrest – a written order made on behalf of the state and is based upon a complaint issued pursuant to a statute or rule and which command law enforcement to arrest a person
and bring him before a court.
• An arrest must be made pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the judge.
• It may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night.
• Requisites for a valid warrant:
1. Issued upon probable cause.
i. Probable cause – such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person
sought to be arrested.
2. Personal examination by the judge (optional in warrant of arrest).
3. Examined under oath and affirmation.
4. Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
5. Not for more than one offense.
• The applicant needs to show:
1. Probable cause that an offense was committed; and
2. That the person to be arrested committed it.
Exceptions under the Rules of Criminal Procedure
1. In flagrante delicto – in the presence of the arresting officer or any private individual, the accused has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. (Sec. 5a, Rule 113)
2. Hot pursuit – a crime has been committed and the arresting officer or private person has personal knowledge of such facts. (Sec. 5b, Rule 113)
3. When the person to be arrested is an escapee from a penal establishment or confinement. (Sec. 5c, Rule 113)
4. By the bondsman for the purpose of surrendering the accused (Sec. 23, Rule 113)
5. Where the accused attempts to leave the country without permission of the court (Sec. 23, Rule 114)
13 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

SEC. 3. (1) THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE SHALL BE INVIOLABLE
EXCEPT UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT, OR WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER REQUIRES
OTHERWISE, AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
(2) ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THIS OR THE PRECEDING SECTION SHALL BE
INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY PROCEEDING.
• The Bill of Rights imposes limitations on the government’s powers. What if a private
individual effects an unreasonable search and/or seizure?
o Art. 32 of the Civil Code provides that public officers and private
individuals who violate the constitutional rights of others is liable for
damages.
• Requisites:
1. Lawful order of the court; or
2. Public safety or order requires so requires.
Privacy; Exclusionary Rule
Salcedo-Ortañez v. CA (1994) – wiretap : Absent a clear showing that both parties to the
telephone conversation allowed the recording of the same, such evidence is inadmissible.
• Tape recordings can be made only upon lawful order of the court.
Zulueta v. CA (1996) – husband and wife privacy : A person, by contracting marriage, does
not shed his integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is
available to him.
• Communication between spouses is privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsist.
Neither may one spouse be examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication obtained in confidence.
People v. Marti (1991) – search by private person : If the search is made upon the request of
law enforcers, a warrant must first generally be secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality.
However, if the search is made at the initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for
its own private purposes, without the intervention of police authorities, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked, for only the act of the private individual and
not the law enforcers are involved.
• Having observed what was already opened, when no trespass is involved, is not a
search.
Waiver of Rights Under Secs. 2 and 3
People v. Damaso (1992) – personal waiver : Lack of objection may render incompetent
evidence as admissible, but does not affect its probative value. The constitutional immunity from
unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except
the person whose rights are invaded or by one authorized to do so.
• Exclusionary rule – bars admission of illegally obtained evidence.
14
Sps. Veroy v. Layague (1992) – search of persons, not of materials : In crimes mala
prohibita, the subjects thereof are not illegal per se, thus a search warrant is still necessary. In
this case, it is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant,
but they failed to do so.
Habeas Data
Vivares v. STC (2014) – facebook post : Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his
online social networking (OSN) activity, there must be a manifest intention to keep certain posts
private, through the employment of measure to prevent access thereto or limit its visibility.
• 3 strands of privacy:
1. Locational privacy
2. Informational privacy
3. Decisional privacy
SEC. 4. NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION, OR OF
THE PRESS, OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
• Core speeches:
1. Political;
2. Social; and
3. Religious.
• Balancing of interest – it is the court’s function to balance public interest and the
constitutional freedoms affected by it, and to arrive at a judgment where the greater
weight shall be placed.
Prior Restraint
• Official government restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance
of actual publication or dissemination.
Near v. Minnesota (1931) – malicious articles against officials : Liberty of speech and of the
press is not an absolute right, and the State may punish its abuse. Any system of prior restraint
of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.
• Defamatory – injures reputation.
• Scandalous – circulates charges of reprehensible conduct.
• Public nuisance
1. Detrimental to public morals and to the general welfare;
2. Tending to disturb the peace of the community; and
3. Provoking assaults and the commission of crime.
• The law is too restrictive. Publication is needed to inform the people.
Freedman v. Maryland (1965) – judicial determination : Prior submission of a film to
censorship is valid only if it takes place under procedural safeguards:
1. The burden of proving that the film is unprotected expression must rest on the censor;
and
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

2. While the State may require advance submission of all films, in order to proceed
effectively to bar all showings of unprotected films, the requirement cannot be
administered in a manner which would lend an effect of finality to the censor’s
determination whether a film constitutes protected expression.
• Censorship – prior restraint before the actual publication, exhibition, or dissemination.
New York Times Co. v. US (1971) – top secret information : Prior restrains are rarely
justified, even in matters of extreme government importance or national security, since they are
among the most disfavored forms of restricting the freedom of speech.
• The word “security” is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be
invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The
guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative
government provides no real security for our Republic.
Subsequent Punishment
People v. Perez (1923) – dangerous tendency rule : Criticism, no matter how sever, on the
Executive, Legislative, and the Judiciary is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the
intention and effect be seditious.
• Sedition – the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. Though the ultimate
object of sedition is a violation of the public peace, yet it does not aim at direct and
open violence against the laws, or the subversion of the Constitution.
• Not only “what the accused said,” but “what the accused could do” should be taken
into consideration.
Dennis v. US (1951) – overthrow of government : Convicting a defendant of a non-speech
related offense based on speech is permissible only if the speech created a clear and present
danger that the crime would be attempted or perpetrated.
• The Smith Act does not merely criminalize the overthrow of the government; it wants
to criminalize the destruction of the government through violence. The lawful purpose
is the preservation of the government.
Gonzales v. COMELEC (1969) – early nomination of candidates : Free speech and free press
– the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship
or punishment.
• 2 tests for permissible restriction of speech:
1. Clear and present danger test – the evil consequence of the comment must
be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before it
can be punished.
§ Clear – a causal connection with the danger of the substantially
evil arising from the utterance in question.
§ Present – the time element, identified with imminent and
immediate danger.
§ The danger must not only be probable but very likely inevitable.
2. Dangerous tendency rule – if the words uttered create a dangerous tendency
which the State has a right to prevent, such words are punishable.
• Assembly – a right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect
to public affairs.
• For nomination – 150 days for local; 90 days for national.
15
Ayer Prod. V. Judge Capulong (1988) – public figure : The movie was not mainly about the
life of private respondent Enrile, but of his role in the events of the change of government. Such
intrusion is reasonably necessary to keep the film a truthful historical account. Moreover,
Enrile’s,right to privacy, as a public figure, is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary
citizen.
• Freedom of expression includes the freedom to exhibit motion pictures.
Speech and the Electoral Process
Adiong v. COMELEC (1992) – election propaganda : The posting of decals and stickers in
mobile places like cars and other moving vehicles does not endanger any substantial
government/public interest. It is a form of expression of an individual’s preference by displaying
it to convince others to agree with him.
• The preferred freedom of expression calls all the more for the utmost respect when
what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more meaningful
the equally vital right of suffrage.
• In borderline situations (especially in election cases), it should lean more towards
freedom.
SWS v. COMELEC (2001) – election survey : The inhibition of speech should be upheld only
if the expression falls within one of the few unprotected categories (libel, obscenity).
• The provision lays a prior restraint on the freedom of speech, expression, and of the
press by prohibiting the publication of election surveys within 15 days before a
national election, and 7 days before a local election.
• 2 kinds of regulation:
o Content-based – when the subject of the speech or utterance is sought to be
regulated. Any content-based regulation must show that the government has
a compelling or overriding interest in the subject of the regulation.
o Content-neutral – regulates only the conduct associated with speech, such
as the time, place, and manner. Needs only to show an important or
substantial government interest, for as long as it leaves open alternative
channels of communication.
§ O’Brien Test:
1. Within the constitutional power of the Government;
2. Furthers an important government interest;
3. Government interest is unrelated to the suppression of
free expression; and
4. Incidental restriction is essential for the furtherance of
such interest.
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (2015) – rh bill tarpaualin; team patay and team buhay
: The tarpaulin is not a form of political advertisement, but a form of expression by the
petitioners on political matters (RH Law), and it was not even solicited or sponsored by any
candidate for the elections.
• The right to suffrage not only includes the right to vote for one’s chosen candidate,
but also the right to vocalize that choice to the public in general, in the hope of
influencing their votes.
• Size matters – larger space and larger fonts enable the petitioners to voice out their
opinions on important matters.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

• 6 theories why the freedom of speech is important:
1. The right of the people to participate in public affairs, including the right to
criticize government actions.
2. Deliberative democracy
3. Safety Valve Theory –if you repress people from expressing their anger,
this would lead to a dangerous tendency to rebel against authorities.
4. Free market of ideas – gives a broader sense of wisdom as to what is
happening; from different perspectives.
5. The Bill of Rights, free speech included, is supposed to protect individuals
and minorities against majoritarian abuses perpetrated through the
framework of democratic governance – there must be debate.
6. Expression is a marker for group identity – groups are able to voice out
collectively.
1-United v. COMELEC (2015) use of private property for political expression : As a result
of the resolution, owners of PUVs and transport terminals are forcefully inhibited from
expressing their preferences, and the sanction is revocation of their permits.
SWS v. COMELEC (2015) – election surveys : It would discourage subscribers (sometimes
the candidates themselves) from subscribing to SWS and Pulse Asia.
• The effects of election surveys on voter behavior:
1. Bandwagon effect – voters support the leading candidate.
2. Underdog effect – voters support the losing candidate.
3. Motivating effect – individuals who had not intended to vote are persuaded.
4. Strategic voting – voting is influenced by chances of winning
5. Theory of Free-will effect – voters cast their ballots to prove the polls
wrong.
Davao City Water District v. Aranjuez (2015) : The employees did not violate the directive
of Davao City Water District (DCWD) to attend the fun run and to wear sports attire.
• In wearing and posting inscriptions, the employees exercised their freedom of
expression.
Commercial Speech
Rubin v. Coors Brewing (1995) – liquor labels : Commercial speech is also protected under
the First Amendment.
• Hudson test (to determine whether commercial speech is constitutional):
1. Commercial speech must concern lawful activity and is not misleading;
2. There is substantial government interest;
3. Regulation directly advances the interest; and
4. Not overbroad.
• Commercial speech doctrine
1. The government must prohibit the same when it is misleading; and
2. Compel the disclosure of information when the public safety and welfare so
requires.
16
Unprotected Speech
Libel
• Libel – a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or a defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.
• Must be:
1. Public; and
2. Malicious.
• Privilege communication – a communication made in good faith on any subject matter
in which the communicator has an interest, or concerning which he has a duty, is
privileged if made to a person having a corresponding interest, although it contains
incriminatory matter which, without the privilege, would be libelous and actionable.
Policarpio v. Manila Times (1962) – protected if true, and done in good faith : Although
newspapers enjoy a certain degree of discretion in determining the manner of presenting
information to the public and that presentation in a sensational manner is not per se illegal, such
must be:
1. True;
2. Fair;
3. Made in good faith; and
4. Without any comments or remarks.
• If civic duty to tell the authorities, it is not defamatory.
• If the person is a private individual, the presumption of malice is conclusive (intruding
into the privacy of the private individual).
• Inaccuracies may be excused because of deadlines, etc. However, the articles must
also be true and fair.
• Clarification does not wipe out the responsibility arising from the effects of the first
article, but may mitigate damages.
• In this case, it was obvious that the untruthful statements were for the purpose of
making the petitioner look guilty.
Lopez v. CA (1970) – wrong picture of person : Mistake is no excuse to absolve publishers
because libel is harmful on its face by the fact that it exposes the injured party to more than
trivial ridicule, whether it is fact or opinion is irrelevant.
• Treatise of Newell – publication of a photograph of a person in a libelous article is a
libel committed against the person whose picture is published.
• In cases of public figures, there must be actual malice for one to be held liable for
libel/defamation.
Obscenity
• Obscenity – something offensive to chastity, decency or delicacy.
• Indecency – an act against good behavior and a just delicacy.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

Miller v. California (1973) – mailing of adult materials : Benefits from exposing ideas
through obscenity are clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Offensiveness should be based on contemporary community standards and not national
standards because people in different States vary in their tastes and attitudes.
• 3 elements:
1. Dominant theme is sex;
2. Patently offensive representation of sexual matters; and
3. Material is utterly without redeeming social value.
• New basic guidelines:
1. Appeals to the prurient (excessive interest in sexual matters) interest of an
average person applying contemporary community standards;
§ Prurient character depends on community standards.
2. Describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and
3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or social value.
Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak (1985) – obscene movie : Obscenity can only be determined by
the courts; the board can only classify.
• Test: Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards,
the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest.
Pita v. CA (1989) – pinoy playboy : The Court used the Miller test. The mayor herein could
not have validly ordered the raid without a search warrant. Thus, the following guidelines should
be followed:
1. Authorities must apply for a search warrant from a judge;
2. Authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are obscene
and post a clear and present danger;
3. Judge must determine whether the materials are obscene, and must judge on a case-
to-case basis;
4. The court may issue a warrant if probable cause exists;
5. The proper suit should be filed pursuant to Art. 201 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC);
and
6. Any conviction is subject to an appeal.
Barnes v. Glen Theater (1991) – indiana public indecency statute : The Court used the
O’Brien test in determining the constitutionality of the statute.
1. It is within the constitutional power of the State to regulate.
2. The substantial government interest is protecting order and morality.
3. The statute is unrelated to the suppression of such expressive speech such as nude
dancing.
o The requirement that the dancers don pasties and a G-string does not deprive
the dance of whatever erotic message it conveys; it simply makes the
message slightly less graphic. The perceived evil that Indiana seeks to
address is not erotic dancing, but public nudity.
4. The statutory prohibition is not a means to some greater end, but an end in itself. It is
without cavil that the public indecency statute is "narrowly tailored;" Indiana's
requirement that the dancers wear at least pasties and a G-string is modest, and the
bare minimum necessary to achieve the state's purpose.
17
o Indiana's requirement that the dancers wear at least pasties and a G-string is
modest, and the bare minimum necessary to achieve the state's purpose.
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) – filthy words : Of all forms of communication,
broadcasting has received the most limited First Amendment protection – like when a
broadcaster may be deprived of his license and his forum if the Commission decides that such
an action would serve "the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”
• 2 characters of speech:
1. Capacity to offend; and
2. Social value
• Broadcasting presented over airwaes reaches the citizens not only in public, but also
those in the privacy of their homes (right to privacy).
Renton v. Playtime Theater (1986) – zoning ordinance : Not a regulation primarily of speech,
but of its secondary effects to the surrounding community.
• Zoning ordinances designed to combat the undesirable secondary effects of such
businesses are to be reviewed under the standards applicable to "content-neutral" time,
place, and manner regulations.
Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) – nomination speech with dirty references :
Speeches in schools may also be protected by the First Amendment, unless it intrudes upon:
1. The work of the schools; or
2. The rights of other students.
• Tinker – The marked distinction between the political "message" of the armbands in
Tinker and the sexual content of respondent's speech in this case seems to have been
given little weight by the Court of Appeals. In upholding the students' right to engage
in a nondisruptive, passive expression of a political viewpoint in Tinker, this Court
was careful to note that the case did "not concern speech or action that intrudes upon
the work of the schools or the rights of other students."
• These cases recognize the obvious concern on the part of parents, and school
authorities acting in loco parentis, to protect children especially in a captive audience
– from exposure to sexually explicit, indecent, or lewd speech.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) – the spectrum school publication; public
forum : School facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have "by
policy or by practice" opened those facilities "for indiscriminate use by the general public or by
some segment of the public, such as student organizations.
• Although the objective of Journalism II was to teach “leadership responsibilities as
issue and page editors,” it did not imply any relinquishment of school control over the
activity.
• The school did not intend to open the pages of Spectrum to indiscriminate use, but
reserved it only for its intended purpose as a supervised learning experience for
journalism students.
• It is only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored mode of student expression
has no valid educational purpose that the First Amendment is so "directly and sharply
implicated, as to require judicial intervention to protect students' constitutional rights.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

Fernando v. CA (2006) – music gallery with pornographic material : What remains clear is
that obscenity is an issue proper for judicial determination and should be treated on a case to
case basis and on the judge’s sound discretion.
• The magazines and VHS tapes showed pictures of men and women in the nude doing
the sexual act, and the VHS tape entitled “Kahit sa Pangarap Lang” showed Myra
Manibog dancing which excited the sexual instinct of male audience.
Assembly and Petition
• Public assembly – rally, demonstration, march, parade, procession or any other form
of mass or concerted action held in a public place.
Navarro v. Villegas (1970) – assembly in embassy and luneta park : Respondent Mayor
possesses reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used
for the assembly in order to secure convenient use thereof by others and provide adequate and
proper policing to minimize the risks of disorder and maintain public safety and order.
PBM Employees v. PBM (1973) – strike in malacañang against pasig police : The
respondent failed to appreciate the sine qua non of an effective demonstration especially by a
labor union, which is their total presence in order to generate the maximum sympathy for the
validity of their cause and immediate action on the part of corresponding government agencies.
• Hierarchy of civil liberties – the freedom of the petitioners to peaceably assemble
enjoys primacy over respondent company’s right to property in the form of profit.
Reyes v. Bagatsing (1983) – restraint of rallies : In the absence of a clear and present danger
of a substantive evil to a legitimate public interest, there was no justification then to deny the
exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceably to assemble. It is settled law
that as to public places, especially so as to parks and streets, there is freedom of access, nor is
their use dependent on who is the applicant for the permit, whether an individual or a group.
• Clear and present danger test > dangerous tendency rule > balancing of interest test.
• Clear and present danger – imminent.
Malabanan v. Ramento (1984) – institute of animal sciences and institute of agriculture :
Even though this is a private institution, it is governed by rules of CHED or the Legal Education
Board (LEB). The school does not have absolute power to control its premises. Education is
imbued with public interest.
• In granting permits for rallies in schools:
1. There may be conditions as to the time and place of the assembly to avoid
disruption of classes or stoppage of work of the non-academic personnel;
and
2. Even if, however, there be violations of its terms, the penalty incurred
should not be disproportionate to the offense.
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance (1995) – philippine press institute : What the constitutional
guarantee of free press prohibits are laws which single out the press or target a group belonging
to the press for special treatment or which in any way discriminate against the press on the basis
of the content of the publication.
18
• VAT is not a license tax. It is not a tax on the exercise of a privilege/constitutional
right. It is imposed on the sale or exchange of goods and services and the lease of
properties purely for revenue purposes. It is not a burden on the exercise of a right.
Acosta v. CA (2000) – public teachers’ rally in liwasang bonifacio : Public service involves
public interest. Detrimental to government services.
• These 'mass actions' were to all intents and purposes a strike; they constituted a
concerted and unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from, work which it was the
teachers' sworn duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic reasons.
• There was an undisputed fact of stoppage of public services by petitioners which
produced adverse effects upon their students for whose education they are responsible.
Their exercise of freedom to peaceably assemble constituted conduct prejudicial to
the interest of the service. Thus, punishable under the Civil Service rules.
Bayan v. Ermita (2006) – no permit, no rally; calibrated preemptive response : The
legislation assailed does not constitute a prior restraint against the freedom of the petitioners as
it did not regulate the content of the speech, but only the time, place, and manner of the same.
• Maximum tolerance – the highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other
peacekeeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of
the same.
• The CPR allowed the enforcers to preempt the danger that would be caused by
rallyists, and allowed the former to immediately cause the dispersal of the latter, even
if there is yet no violence or danger to public order or safety because of the behavior
of the rallyists.
Pader v. People (2000) – putangina mo atty. escolanngo napakawalanghiya mo :
Defamatory words will fall under one or the other, depending not only upon their sense,
grammatical significance, and accepted ordinary meaning judging them separately, but also
upon the special circumstances of the case, antecedents or relationship between the offended
party and the offender, which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time.
• Obviously, the intention was to show his feelings of resentment and not necessarily to
insult the latter. Being a candidate running for vice mayor, occasional gestures and
words of disapproval or dislike of his person are not uncommon.
Freedom of speech, expression, and of press
Test Requisites
1. Clear;
Clear and present danger
2. Imminent; and
test
3. Inevitable
1. If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency
which the State has a right to prevent, such words are
punishable.
Dangerous Tendency Rule
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

SEC. 5. NO LAW SHALL BE MADE RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR
1. Within the constitutional power of the Government; PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. THE FREE EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF
2. Furthers an important government interest; RELIGIOUS PROFESSION AND WORSHIP, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENCE, SHALL
3. Government interest is unrelated to the suppression of FOREVER BE ALLOWED. NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL
O’Brien Test
free expression; and OR POLITICAL RIGHTS.
4. Incidental restriction is essential for the furtherance of
such interest.
• Religion – reference to one’s views of his relations to his creator, and to the
obligations that they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience
1. Commercial speech must concern lawful activity and to his will.
is not misleading; o Requisites:
Commercial : Hudson 1. Belief in God or some parallel belief;
2. There is substantial government interest;
Test 2. Moral code transcending individual belief;
3. Regulation directly advances the interest; and
4. Not overbroad. 3. Demonstrable sincerity in belief; and
4. Associational ties.

1. True; Non-establishment of Religion

Libel : Policarpio Test
Obscenity : Miller Test
Right of the people peaceably to assemble to petition the government for
Permits for rallies in
schools
Rules on assembly and
petition
2. Fair;
3. Made in good faith; and • Government neutrality:
4. Without any comments or remarks. 1. Government must not prefer one religion over another or religion over
1. Appeals to the prurient interest of an average person religion;
applying contemporary community standards; 2. Government funds must not be applied to religious purposes;
2. Describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; 3. Government action must not aid religion; and
4. Government action must not result in excessive entanglement with religion.
and
3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or social • Exceptions:
value. 1. Tax exception for religious, charitable, educational property;
2. Salary of chaplains in the military and prison; and
3. Religion in public schools.
redress of grievances
1. There may be conditions as to the time and place of Aglipay v. Ruiz (1937) – postage stamps incidental benefit to religion : The only purpose in
the assembly to avoid disruption of classes or issuing and selling the stamps was to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists to the
stoppage of work of the non-academic personnel; and country. The funds fained would go to the government, not the religious sect.
2. Even if, however, there be violations of its terms, the • The actual design contained a map of Manila, the capital of the Philippines, and only
penalty incurred should not be disproportionate to the an inscription “Seat XXXIII Int’l Eucharistic Congress.” What was emphasized was
offense. not the Eucharistic Congress, but Manila.
1. Inform the licensing authority of the date, place and Garces v. Estenzo (1981) – san vicente ferrer image : The wooden image was purchased in
time; connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer,
• If venue is a private place, only the consent and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or the
of the owner is required. religious beliefs of the barrio residents.
2. Application filed ahead of time to enable public
official concerned to appraise whether there may be School District v. Schempp (1963) – reading of bible : Even if its purpose is not strictly
valid objections; religious, it is sought to be accomplished through readings, without comment, from the Bible.
3. Clear and present danger test applied; Surely the place of the Bible as an instrument of religion cannot be gainsaid.
4. If public authority believes that there is an imminent • Double-aspect of the freedom of religion:
and grave danger of substantial evil, applicants must o Forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice
be heard on the matter; and of any form of worship; and
5. Decision must be transmitted at the earliest o Safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.
opportunity.

19 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW


• Wholesome neutrality in non-establishment clause – a recognition of the teachings of
history that powerful sects or groups might bring about a fusion of governmental and
religious functions or a concert or dependency of one upon the other to the end that
official support of the State or Federal Government would be placed behind the tenets
of one or of all orthodoxies.
• Wholesome neutrality in free-exercise clause – recognizes the value of religious
training, teaching and observance and, more particularly, the right of every person to
freely choose his own course with reference thereto, free from any compulsion from
the State.
Board of Education v. Allen (1968) – providing textbooks to schools : The law provided that
only secular books may receive approval. The record contains no suggestion that religious books
have been loaned.
• Parochial schools pursue 2 goals:
1. Religious instruction; and
2. Secular education.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – salary subsidy to teachers : Violated the Lemon test because
having to monitor whether the teacher exclusively teaches secular education would create and
excessive government entanglement with religion.
• Lemon test:
1. Secular legislative purpose;
2. Primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
3. No excessive government entanglement with religion.
Tilton v. Richardson (1971) – construction grants to schools : Although the 4 schools are
governed by Catholic organizations, and the students and faculty are predominantly Catholic,
evidence shows that none of these 4 institutions require its students to attend religious services.
• Secular interest: ample opportunity for fullest development of intellectual capacities
of this and future generations of American youth, and such opportunities requires
assistance to accommodate rapidly growing numbers of youth who aspire higher
education.
• However, the 20-year interest in the law violates the Establishment Clause as the
religious affiliations will be allowed unlimited use of the facilities after the expiration
of the 20-year period. Thus, it will constitute a direct donation to their religious
interest.
Country of Allegheny v. American Civil Libertiies (1989) – government endorsement to
crèche and menorah : Endorsement test- whether an observer might mistake private expression
for officially endorsed religious expression.
• No violation of establishment clause if the religious figure is put together with secular
or commercial figures which diminishes the religious import of the former.
Zobrest v. Catalina (1992) – aid to deaf student in religious school : Secular purpose is for
the student; that the student is enrolled in a sectarian school is merely incidental.
• The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) creates a neutral government
program dispensing aid not to schools but to individual handicapped children,
regardless of school choice.
20
Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette & Ku Klux Klan ( 1995) – cross in pubic forum :
The right to use government property for one’s private expression depends upon whether the
property has by law or tradition been given the status of a public forum, or rather has been
reserved for special official uses.
• Religious expression cannot violate the establishment clause when:
1. Purely private; and
2. Occurs in a traditional or designated public forum, publicly announced and
open to all on equal terms.
Manosca v. CA (1996) – national historical institute; inc : The purpose in setting up the
marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the
culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding of the Iglesia ni Cristo
(INC).
• The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the INC than
by most others could well be true, but such a peculiar advantage still remains to be
merely incidental and secondary in nature.
Islamic Da’wah v. Executive Secretary (2003) – halal certification : Violates the
establishment clause because it interferes with the religion of the Islamic faith. Government
should not dictate. Non-establishment also means non-interference.
• The protection and promotion of the Muslim Filipinos’ right to health are already
provided for in existing laws and ministered to by government agencies.
Taruc v. Dela Cruz (2005) – excommunicated from religion : In disputes involving religious
institutions or organizations, there are areas in which the court should not touch:
1. Doctrinal differences; and
2. Disciplinary differences.
UCCP v. Bradford UCC (2012) – sec’s authority : When the controversy, although related to
religious doctrine or practice, includes other rights, the courts may step in.
• Not doctrine, but Corporation Code, which is why the court assumed jurisdiction.
Imbong v. Ochoa (2014) – reproductive health bill : Conscientious objectors are exempted as
long as the Reproductivev Health Bill goes against their religious beliefs.
Free Exercise of Religion
• Strict neutrality – believes that there must be a high and impenetrable wall separating
Church and State.
• Benevolent neutrality – recognizes the religious nature of the Filipino people and the
elevating influence of religion in society; at the same time, it acknowledges that
government must pursue its secular goals. In pursuing the same, however, government
might adopt laws or actions of general applicability which inadvertently burden
religious exercise. It also gives room for accommodation of these religious exercises
as required by the free exercise clause. The Philippines subscribes to benevolent
neutrality.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

Victoriano v. Elizalde (1974) – closed shop agreements : RA 875 as amended by RA 3350
exempts members of sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor
organization.
• Secular purpose: Advancing the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion by
averting that certain persons be refused to work, or be dismissed from work, or be
dispossessed of their right to work and of being impeded to pursue a modest means of
livelihood, by reason of union security agreements.
• Primary effect: Protection of said employees against the aggregate force of the
collective bargaining agreement, and relieving certain citizens of a burden on their
religious beliefs.
• Closed shop agreement – an agreement wherein a company will only employ members
of the labor union it is in agreement with.
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) – prior restraint : A State may, by general and
nondiscriminatory legislation, regulate the times, places, and the manner of soliciting upon its
streets, and of holding meetings thereon, and may in other respects safeguard the peace, good
order, and comfort of the community without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected
by the 14th Amendment.
US v. Ballard (1944) – good faith in believing : Whether a religious belief is true or false is
irrelevant to a judicial determination, as long as the belief is sincerely held.
American Bible Society v. City of Manila (1957) – selling bibles : Since the free exercise of
religion herein is related to freedom of speech/expression, any restraint of such right can only
be justified on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which
the State has right to prevent.
• The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent
as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down.
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent (1995) – flag ceremony : Freedom to act may be
regulated. In this case, however, since the petitioners do not engage in disruptive behavior, there
is no warrant for expulsion.
• Gerona case – the flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines.
It is utterly devoid of any religious significance.
• Two-fold aspect of free exercise:
1. Freedom to believe; and
2. Freedom to act.
• Forcing a small religious group, through the iron hand of the law, to participate in a
ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of
country or respect for duly constituted authorities.
• Free exercise of religion is the rule, not the exception.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – Amish students not required to go to school upon reaching 15
: Even the power of the State to impose reasonable regulations for the control of basic education
must yield to the rights of parents to provide an equivalent education.
• To have the protection of the religion clauses, the claims must be rooted in religious
belief.
21
Pamil v. Teleron (1978) – ecclesiastical minister in public office : The Administrative Code
provision relied on by petitioner was enacted in 1917. The 1935 Constitution explicitly declared
that “No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights.”
McDaniel v. Paty (1978) – ban on ecclastics in public office : The purpose or fear in electing
ministers to public office was they they will necessarily exercise their powers and influence to
promote the interests of one sect or thwart the interests of another, contrary to the anti-
establishment principle with its command of neutrality.
• However, Tennessee has failed to evidence the same. The American experience
provides no persuasive support for the fear that clergymen in public office will be less
careful of anti-establishment interests or less faithful to their oaths of civil office than
their unordained counterparts.
Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) – yarmulke in military : Dissention in the military could be
dangerous. The military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society.
When evaluating whether military needs justify a particular restriction on religiously motivated
conduct, courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities
concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest.
German v. Baranganan (1985) – yellow shirts; clenched fists : The reasonableness of the
restriction herein is readily perceived and appreciated if it is considered that the same is designed
to protect the lives of the President and his family, as well as other government officials,
diplomats and foreign guests transacting business with Malacañang.
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance (1995) – philippine bible society : The registration fee imposed
by the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended by the E-vat law, is really just to
pay for the expenses of registration and enforcement of the law.
• However, the Court reserved the issue for an actual case after the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue shall have taxed the Philippine Bible Society (PBS).
Centeno v. Villaon-Pornillos (1994) – fraudulent solicitations : Solicitation for religious
purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the State in the exercise of police power.
• However, inapplicable to the case at bar because the prohibition has not expressly
included religious purposes.
Lee v. Weisman (1992) – rabbi in graduation : Even for those students who object to the
religious exercise, their attendance and participation in the state-sponsored religious activity are
in a fair and real sense obligatory, though the school district does not require attendance as a
condition for receipt of diploma.
• Furthermore, the act of the principal in giving the guidelines to the rabbi violates the
latter’s free exercise of religion, and violates non-establishment because the principal
is a public officer.
Church of the Lukumi v. City of Hialeah (1993) – animal sacrifice : Although the practice
of animal sacrifice may seem abhorrent to some, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable,
logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”
• Smith Test: 1. Neutral – if the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices
because of their religious motivation, the law is not neutral.
2. General application
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

Lamb’s Chapel v. School District (1993) – film series regarding values played in school by • Morality may be religious – what is good depends on the moral prescriptions of a high
religious institution : The showing of the film series would not have been during school hours, moral authority or the beliefs of a particular religion.
would not have been sponsored by the school, and would have been open to the public, not just • Morality may be secular – what is good or right at a given circumstance does not
to church members. derive its basis from any religious doctrine but form the independent moral sense
• Cornelius – the government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a shared as humans.
speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise permitted
subject. Test Requisites
Long v. Basa (2001) – basis of religious organization is the belief : Exception to the non- Non-establishment clause
interference rule is when the act violates the civil rights of its members. 1. Secular legislative purpose;
2. Primary effect that neither
INC v. CA (1996) – remarks about the bible in a tv show : The Movie and Television Lemon test advances nor inhibits religion; and
Regulation and Classification Board (MTRCB) may disagree with the criticisms of other 3. No excessive government
religions, but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however unclean they may be. entanglement with religion.
Under our constitutional scheme, it is not the tast of the State to favor any religion by protecting
it against an attack by another religion. Free exercise clause
1. Neutral; and
Estrada v. Escritor (2003 and 2006) – court official with live-in partner; benevolent Strict neutrality : Smith Test
2. General application.
neutrality : The respondent has made out a case for exemption from the law based on her
fundamental right to freedom of religion. 1. Burden on the belief;
• Benevolent neutrality test: 2. Sincere belief in religion;
Benevolent neutrality : Schempp Test
1. Burden on freedom of religion; 3. Compelling state interest; and
4. Narrowly tailored.
2. Compelling state interest; and
3. Least restrictive means. When free exercise clause coincides with right to speech and
expression, use clear and present danger test.
In re: Request of Muslim Employees (2005) – ramadan and prayer day friday : The
performance of religious practices, whether by the Muslim employees or those belonging to
other religious denominations, should not prejudice the courts and the public. SEC. 6. THE LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF CHANGING THE SAME WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED
BY LAW SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED EXCEPT UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT. NEITHER
SHALL THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL BE IMPAIRED EXCEPT IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY,
Iglesia Filipino Independiente v. Heirs of Taezo (2014) – selling of church property by
PUBLIC SAFETY , OR PUBLIC HEALTH, AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
supreme bishop : Sec. 113 of the Corporation Code provides that in cases where the rules,
regulations and discipline of the religious denomination, sect or church, religious society or
order concerned represented by such corporation sole regulate the method of acquiring, holding, Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919) – deported prostitutes : The forcible taking of these women
selling and mortgaging real estate and personal property, such rules, regulations and discipline from Manila by officials of that city, who handed them over to other parties, who deposited
shall control, and the intervention of the courts shall not be necessary. them in a distant region, deprived these women of their freedom of locomotion just as effectively
as if they had been imprisoned. It is always a law (or order of the court) that may affect the
Ronulo v. People (2014) – marriage ceremony form : Contrary to petitioner’s argument that liberty of locomotion.
separation of Church and State precludes the State from qualifying the church “blessing” into a
marriage ceremony, this principle has been duly preserved by Art. 6 of the Family Code which Marcos v. Manglapus (1989) – right to return to country not included : The right to return
provides that “No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of marriage is required. to one’s country is separate and distinct from the right to travel. The right to return to one’s
country is not specifically guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It is the Universal Declaration of
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (2015) – tarpaulin about rh bill and candidates : The Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
essence of the separation of Church and State is that each of them cannot prohibit, inhibit, or the provides for such. However, the State may validly deny the same in the interest of national
interfere with the other. Those part of the congregation are also citizens of the State. security.

Perfecto v. Esidera (2015) – immoral conduct : For purposes of determining administrative
liability of court personnel, lawyers and judges, “immoral conduct” should relatie to their
conduct as officers of the court.
22
Silverio v. CA (1991) – right to bail; hold departure order : Holding an accused in a criminal
case within the reach of the courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines must be
considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance
with law.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

• Bail – the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished
by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court when so
required by the court or the Rules.
Santiago v. Vasquez (1993) – anti-graft and corrupt practices : The object of bail is to relieve
the accused of imprisonment and the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and
at the same time, to put the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were. In the
custody of the proper officer, and to secure the appearance of the accused so as to answer the
call of the court and do what the law may require of him.
• The court can impose limits only on the basis of national security, public safety, public
health, and as may be provided by law. However, the same should by no means be
construed as delimiting the inherent power of the courts to use all means necessary to
carry their orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them. Thus, Santiago’s
educational purpose is not an exemption.
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan (1995) – medical purpose : Considering the fact that the petitioner
is facing charges before the courts in several cases, in two of which she was convicted although
the decision is still pending reconsideration, petitioner did not have an absolute right to leave
the country and the burden was on her to prove that because of danger to health if not to her life
there was necessity to seek medical treatment in foreign countries.
Yap v. CA (2001) – not disallowed, merely requiring certification from mayor prior to
change of residence : The petitioner herein is not prohibited from changing his abode, but only
required to secure a permit for the change of residence from the mayor.
Mirasol v. DPWH (2006) – motorcycle prohibition : The right to travel does not mean the
right to choose any vehicle in traversing the toll way. The right to travel refers to the right to
move from one place to another. Petitioners are not being deprived of their right to use the
limited access facility. They are merely being required, just like the rest of the public, to adhere
to the rules on how to use the facility.
Office of Administrative Services v. Macarine (2012) – permission before travel of court
personal and judges : The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular requiring that all
foreign travels of judges and court personnel must be with prior permission from the court is
valid to ensure management of court dockets and to avoid disruption in the administration of
justice and in public service.
Republic v. Roque (2013) – right to travel and bail : Requiring the accused to stay within the
city or municipality is a valid restriction of the right to travel because it is for the interest of the
people of the Philippines. Furthermore, a facial challenge is not allowed unless it is an affront
to right to free speech.
SEC. 7. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN SHALL
BE RECOGNIZED. ACCESS TO OFFICIAL RECORDS , AND TO DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS
PERTAINING TO OFFICIAL ACTS, TRANSACTIONS , OR DECISIONS, AS WELL AS TO GOVERNMENT
RESEARCH DATA USED AS BASIS FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT, SHALL BE AFFORDED THE
CITIZEN, SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
23
• The right to information and right to access of records and cdocuments is a form of
political right.
Information and Access to Official Records
Legaspi v. CSC (1987) – eligibility of sanitarians : The writ of mandamus is available for
ministerial functions. If discretionary function, mandamus is not allowed.
• Guidelines:
1. Information is of public concern;
§ Public concern – embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the
public has a right to know, either because they are directly
affected or simply because it arouses the interest of an ordinary
citizen.
2. The petitioner must have locus standi; and
3. If denied, the remedy is a Writ of Mandamus.
• For information to be subject to mandamus:
1. Information is of public concern; and
2. Not among those exempted by law.
a. National security matters;
b. Trade secrets and banking transactions;
c. Criminal matters; and
d. Other confidential information.
Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr. (1989) – batasang pambansa members in pdp-laban and unido
party : Petitioners are entitled to access to the documents evidencing loans granted by the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), subject to reasonable regulations that the latter
may promulgate relating to the manner and hours of examination.
Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato (1991) – mtrcb officers voiting : The nature of the MTRCB
operation is public service. The so called “conscience votes” were given by the officers in the
exercise of their public duty, thus of public concern.
Osmeña v. COMELEC (1998) – speech and electoral process; right to informed judgment;
limitation on print space and air time : What is involved here is simply a regulation. Instead
of leaving candidates to advertise freely in the mass media, the law provides for allocation, by
the COMELEC, of print space and air time to give all candidates equal time and space for the
purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
• Given the fact that print space and air time can be controlled or dominated by rich
candidates to the disadvantage of poor candidates, there is a substantial or legitimate
government interest justifying the regulation.
• Furthermore, the right of the people to an informed judgment when exercising the
right to suffrage is recognized.
Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice (1988) – death penalty : The requirement of confidentiality of
the contents of the manual even with respect to the convict, as provided by RA 8177 Sec. 19, is
unduly repressive.
• Internal manuals – the requirement of confidentiality of the contents of the manual
containing the details and procedure of administering lethal injection with respect to
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

the convict is unduly suppressive for the contents of the same are a matter of public
concern.
Chavez v. PCGG (1988) – properties of ferdinand marcos : The right to information and
access thereto does not include any and all information, only definitive propositions that the
Government is ready to disclose.
• Definitive proposition – when the committee/body makes its official recommendation
on the part of the government. From this moment, the public’s right to information
attaches and any citizen can access all the non-proprietary information leading to such
definitive proposition.
• The compromise agreement was unusual because it already discussed that some
properties would not be taxed, that there would be no civil and administrative liability.
Gonzales v. Narvasa (2000) – preparatory commission on constitutional reform : The
public matters concerned herein are the appointments made to public offices and the utilization
of public property.
Chavez v. PEA (2002) – reclamation of manila bay : The information, however, must
constitute definite propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions
like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting
national security and public order.
• A consummated contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to
information.
• The twin provisions seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the
operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to
exercise effectively other constitutional rights.
• The right to information covers 3 categories of information:
1. Official records – any document that is part of the public records in the
custody of government agencies or officials.
2. Documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and decisions
– documents and papers recording, evidencing, establishing, confirming,
supporting, justifying or explaining official acts, transactions or decisions
of government agencies or officials.
3. Government research data used in formulating policies – research data,
whether raw, collated or processed, owned by the government and used in
formulating government policies.
Hilado v. Reyes (2006) – intestate proceedings : Although not all records may be of public
concern, the respondents herein are interested parties who, under the Rules of Court should be
granted access to the records.
• Decisions and opinions of a court are of course matters of public concern or interest
for these are the authorized expositions and interpretations of the laws, binding upon
all citizens, of which every citizen is charged with knowledge.
• Pleadings and other documents filed by parties to a case need not be matters of public
concern or public interest. Party requesting must be an interested party (one whose
rights will be affected).
Sabio v. Gordon (2006) – exemption of pcgg officers from legislative inquiry : The conduct
of inquiries in aid of legislation is not only intended to benefit Congress but also the citizenry.
24
The people are equally concerned with this proceeding and have the right to participate therein
in order to protect their interests.
Bantay v. COMELEC (2007) – list of party-list nominees : Every right of the people
recognized as fundamental lies a corresponding duty on the part of those who govern to respect
and protect that right. Every citizen by the simple fact of his citizenship, possesses the right to
be informed.
• While the vote case in a party-list elections is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end,
would be a vote for its nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would eventually sit in
the House of Representatives.
Berdin v. Mascarinas (2007) – cost for reproduction of tax ordinance : While access to
official records may not be prohibited, it certainly may be regulated. The regulation may come
either from statutory law and from the inherent power of an officer to control his office and the
records under his custody and to exercise some discretion as to the manner in which persons
desiring to inspect, examine, or copy the record may exercise their rights.
Chavez v. NHA (2007) – comprehensive and integrated metropolitan manila waste
management plan; smokey mountain development : Pending the enactment of an enabling
law, the release of information through postings in public bulletin boards and government
websites satisfies the constitutional requirement.
Neri v. Senate (2008) – executive privilege; nbn-zte scandal : There are 2 kinds of executive
privilege:
• Presidential communications privilege – communications, documents or other
materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the
President believes should remain confidential.
o Requisites:
1. Quintessential and non-delegable presidential power;
2. Operational proximity test; and
3. Showing of compelling interest and unavailability elsewhere.
• Deliberative process privilege – advisory opinions, recommendations, and
deliberations comprising part of a process by which government decisions and
policies are formulated.
o Requisites:
1. Pre-decisional; and
2. Deliberative.
Suplico v. NEDA (2008) – notes of meeting between pgma and chinese president : The
senate investigation in aid of legislation cannot be the basis of the court’s decision which
requires a judicial finding of facts. There was no perfected contract, petitioners wanted to find
out how the negotiations went.
Akbayan v. Aquino (2008) – jpepa diplomatic negotiations : There must be a “substantial
showing of need” to overcome the presumption of confidentiality.
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel (2008) – moa-ad peace negotiations not
exempted : The peace negotiations was in the exploratory stage. Unless there is something that
is definitive, that is the portion where the people have the right to disclosure.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

Guingona v. COMELEC (2010) – pcos machines : Information must be supplied even though SEC. 8. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, INCLUDING THOSE EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
the elections were already finished. SECTORS, TO FORM UNIONS, OR SOCIETIES FOR PURPOSES NOT CONTRARY TO LAW SHALL NOT
BE ABRIDGED.
Antolin v. Domondon (2010) – cpa board exam : Matters of administration regarding the
checking of booklets is confidential. The Board cannot be compelled to re-correct the
examination of papers because it is part of their discretionary functions, not ministerial. TUPAS v. NHC (1989) – certification of election; labor organization : The workers or
employees of the National Housing Corporation (NHC) now have the right to form unions or
Center for People v. COMELEC (2010) – pcos source code : The political parties have a right employees’ organizations by express provision of the Constitution altering it to GOCCs “with
to information on the process of elections which is included in the source code. original charter.” Thus, those created under the general corporation code are allowed.
• Certification election – appointment of a representative labor organization among
Francisco v. TRB (2010) – toll facilities on public improvements : The confidentiality clause other organizations.
herein is valid because it is not a blanket confidentiality clause, that disclosure will be made if • General law – Corporation Code of the Philippines. Government is only an owner of
there is a law requiring the same. It was allowed because the party is not the Government itself, shares of stock.
but the Government Owned and Controlled Corporation (GOCC). • Exampme: Makati Public School Teachers Association and Samahan ng Public
Teachers ng Makati (sorry idk how to “tagalize” this lol) – can there by a certification
Initiatives v. PSALM (2012) – privatization of the angat hydro-electic power plant : election?
PSALM’s evasive response (referral to K-water’s counsel) to the second request for information o No. Not allowed by law because certification means that one is a dominant
was unjustified because documents such as the company profile and names of authorized association “for the purpose of bargaining.” However, public school
officers/representatives were already in their custody. teachers’ organizations cannot bargain because their terms are provided by
law.
Privatization and Management Office v. Strategic Alliance (2013) – right and duty in
relation to art. 2, sec. 28 : Petitioner unsuccessfully anchors its claim on a violation of the SSSEA v. CA (1989) – strike by sss employees : Public labor unions cannot have a bargaining
public’s right to information because the said right merely gives access to public records, and unit because their benefits are afforded by law. Government instrumentalities’ employees do not
does not give rise to a positive right to obtain a Notice of Award of the Philippine National have the right to strike.
Construction Corporation (PNCC) properties.
MPST v. Laguio, Jr. (1991) – strike by manila public school teachers : Public teachers are
COCOFED v. COMELEC (2013) – party-list elections; list of nominees : The need for prohibited by CSC rules from striking. The dissent, however, recognized that they were
submission of the complete list required by law becomes all the more important in a party-list exercising their freedom of expression. Thus, outright dismissal from service is unreasonable.
election to apprise the electorate of the individuals behind the party they are voting for.
Sereno v. Committee (2016) – minutes of eo486 : Every claim of exemption, being a limitation UPSU v. Laguesma (1998) – route managers : Managers are not prohibited by law from
on a right constitutionally granted to the people, is liberally construed in favor of disclosure and joining organizations. However, they are not allowed to join rank-and-file unions. Managers are
strictly against the claim of confidentiality. It is the government agency concerned that has the not allowed to form associations “for the purpose of bargaining” because they are the ones who
burden of showing that the information sought to be obtained is not a matter of public concern, lay down the policies. Supervisory managers can join associations for the purpose of bargaining,
or that it is under the exemptions provided by law. however limited. Route managers are top managers.
Rule Requisites • 3 levels of management:
1. First-line managers – direct operating employees only; do not supervise
1. Information is of public concern; and
other managers.
2. Not among those exempted by law.
2. Middle managers – direct the activities of other managers and sometimes
a. National security matters;
Writ of mandamus also those of operating employees. Middle managers’ principal
b. Trade secrets and banking transactions;
responsibilities are to direct the activities that implement their
c. Criminal matters; and
organization’s policies and to balance the demands of their superiors with
d. Other confidential information.
the capacities of their subordinates.
1. Quintessential and non-delegable presidential power; 3. Top managers – responsible for overall management of the organization. It
Presidential
2. Operational proximity test; and establishes operating policies and guides the organization’s interactions
communications
3. Showing of compelling interest and unavailability with its environment.
privilege
elsewhere.
Deliberative process 1. Pre-decisional; and
privilege 2. Deliberative.

25 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW


Sta. Clara Homeowners v. Gaston (2002) – automatic membership : Respondent is not
required to pay association dues nor be a member of the association because when he bought
the property, there was yet no association mentioned or automatic membership contemplated in
the deed of sale.
Padcom v. Ortigas Center (2002) – automatic membership : Petitioner cannot claim that he
is not a member of the respondent’s association because he assumed the responsibilities of his
predecessor, and in the deed there was an express stipulation of automatic membership with the
association.
SEC. 9. PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION.
• Eminent domain – ultimate right of sovereign power to appropriate, not only public,
but also private property within the territorial sovereignty for public purposes.
• Eminent domain is inherently possessed by the State through the legislature and may
be delegated to:
1. Local Government Units (LGUs) pursuant to an ordinance enacted by
respective legislative bodies. Governed by Administrative Code.
§ NOTE: ordinance, not resolution.
2. Public utilities, as may be delegated by law.
Expropriation in General
Vda. De Ouano v. Republic (2011) – expropriation of petitioners’ properties by the
national airport corporation : A condemnor should commit to use the property pursuant to the
purpose stated in the petition for expropriation, failing which it should file another petition for
the new purpose. If not, then it behooves the condemnor to return the said property to its private
owner, if the latter so desires.
Power to Undertake Expropriation Case
Heirs of JBL Reyes v. City of Manila (2004) – eviction and unlawful detainer : Private lands
rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. In the same vein,
expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition have
been exhausted.
Rights of Owner Before Expropriation
Republic v. Salem (2000) – valid sale before expropriation : The sale made before the success
of the expropriation proceeding was validly made because the owners still had the rights to their
property. Thus, just compensation must be paid to the new owner as the sale was valid.
Elements of Taking
Republic v. Vda. De Castelvi (1974) – taking of the property by the government : There
was no taking in this case because it was not permanent (lease agreement), and the owner still
had the rights attached to the same because she was not ousted as the owner thereof.
26
• Elements of taking:
1. Expropriator must enter a private property;
2. Entry into private property must be for more than a momentary period;
3. Entry to property should be under warrant or color of legal authority.
4. Property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected; and
5. Utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust
the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.
US v. Causby (1946) – flights over respondent’s property : Flights over private land are not
a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with
the enjoyment and use of the land.
• The immediate airspace above the property is also entitled to the owner of the land
below.
Penn Transport Central v. New York City (1978) – restriction on real property : There was
no invalid restriction on the denial of the construction of the building in the designated area,
because the petitioners were allowed to construct the same on other parts of the property.
• A restriction on real property may constitute a taking only if:
1. No public purpose;
2. Harsh impact on owner’s use of the property; or
3. Complete destruction of rights of land of the owners.
OSG v. Ayala (2009) – parking fees : No cogent reason appears why the said power may not
be availed of only to impose a burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of
title and possession. It is usually in cases where title remains with the private owner that inquiry
should be made to determine whether the impairment of property is merely regulated or amounts
to a compensable taking.
Public Use
Sumulong v. Guerrero (1987) – socialized housing : That only a few could actually benefit
from the expropriation of the property does not diminish its public use character. It is simply
not possible to provide all at once land and shelter for all who need them.
• Socialized housing is a public use pursuant to Art. XI Sec. 7 of the Constitution on
adequate social services including housing.
Philippine Columbian Association v. Panis (1993) – taking of only small portion : Public
use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage, including in
particular, urban land reform and housing.
• If delegated, the power is not called eminent domain, but “Power of Inferior Domain.”
Just Compensation
• Just compensation – just and complete equivalent of the loss, which the owner has to
suffer by reason of the expropriation.
• Market value – price fixed by the buyer and seller in the ordinary course of legal trade
and competition.
• Consequential damages – diminution of the other interests of the owner by reason of
the expropriation.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

• Consequential benefits – addition of the other interests of the owner by reason of the De Knecht v. Bautista (1980) – transfer of plan : Whether the party adversely affected is a
expropriation. victim of partiality or prejudice is a judicial question. Legislation may be for the expropriation
of specific property.
City of Manila v. Estrada (1913) – admissibility of evidence about just compensation : Fair • The findings of the Human Settlements Commission are based on:
market value is the price fixed by one who is desirous, but not obliged to sell, and one who 1. Functionality;
desires, but is not obliged to buy. 2. Social impact; and
• Testimony as to mere offers for the property desired or for contiguous property – it 3. Costs.
depends – in this case, it is not admissible because the price paid by Estrada for a
contiguous property was not accompanied with a showing of absolute good faith. Manotok v. NHA (1987) – nationwide slum improvement and resettlement program : The
• Testimony relative to real estate transactions in the vicinity of the land desired – it due process clause cannot be rendered nugatory every time a specific decree or law orders the
depends – in this case, the witnesses herein were professional real estate agents, both expropriation of property and provides its own peculiar manner of taking the same.
had been active in the vicinity at about the time they testified before the • Neither should the courts adopt a hands-off policy just because he public use has been
commissioners. ordained as existing by the decree or the just compensation has been fixed and
o Factors affecting probative value: determined beforehand by the statute.
1. Similarity of the land to that in question; • Where there is an alleged taking of a person’s property, his right to due process has
2. Time when such sales were made; and been violated, the courts will have to step in to probe into such alleged violation.
3. Distance such lands are from those the value of which is the • Presidential Decree stating automatic expropriation is unconstitutional because the
subject of inquiry. courts must determine just compensation.
• Evidence showing prices paid for neighboring land under eminent domain
proceedings – inadmissible – in this case, the expropriation proceeding relied on Republic v. De Knecht (1990) – change in circumstances; no res judicata : No res judicata
(Clarke transaction) included consequential damages, which are absent in this case. because the former decision was based on a general legislation for expropriation, while the
• View of the premises conducted by the commissioners – admissible – however, not decision herein is based on the later enactment of legislation designating the area as available
controlling. The determination of just compensation is still a judicial power. for expropriation due to the change in circumstances, that the residence therein before had
already moved out except for one.
San Roque v. Republic (2007) – initial deposit as pre-condition to entry : Eminent domain
cases are to be strictly construed against the expropriator. Thus, when the respondent herein Rule Requisites
claimed that the evidence of payment was lost due to the war, it cannot be countenanced.
Moreover, even if the initial deposit was disbursed to the lot owners, it would still be insufficient 1. Property taken must be private property;
to cover just compensation. If it was successful, an annotation on the title would have been 2. Genuine necessity to take the private property;
made. Valid expropriation 3. Public use;
4. Just compensation; and
Republic v. BPI (2013) – consequential damages : Just compensation = (market value + 5. Due process.
consequential damages) – consequential benefits. The general rule is that the just compensation 1. Valid and definite offer was made but rejected by the
to which the owner is entitled to is the market value. However, it is modified when only a part owner;
of a certain property is expropriated. In such case, the owner is not restricted to compensation Expropriation by LGU 2. Ordinance enacted authorizing such exercise;
for the portion actually taken, plus consequential damages, if any, on the remaining part of the 3. Public use; and
property. 4. Just compensation.
• Herein respondent was not able to make effective use of its building because of the
1. Expropriator must enter the private property;
expropriation. Even though the building was untouched because the full plan was not
2. Entrance must not be for a momentary period;
accomplished, failure to notify respondent of the same was held against the petitioner.
3. Entry must be made under warrant or color of legal
authority;
NPC v. Manalastas (2016) – transmission lines in naga; inflation rate of peso : The formula Elements of taking
4. Property must be devoted to public use; and
for just compensation to landowners does not include the factor for inflation rate, as inflation is
5. Utilization of property is in such a way as to oust the
properly accounted for through payment of interest on the amount due to the landowner, and
owner and deprive him of all beneficial use of the
through the award of damages and attorney’s fees.
property.
Judicial Review 1. No public purpose;
May be a taking when 2. Harsh impact on owner’s use of the property; or
3. Complete destruction of rights of land of the owners.
27 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

Other rules from Bernas Commentary:
• Owner – all persons who have an interest in the property to be condemned.
• Rule 67 of Rules of Court
o Deposit in the court of the amount equivalent to the assessed value for
tax purpose can give rise to immediate possession.
• RA 7160 Sec. 10 – Infrastructure – initial deposit of 15% of the fair market value
based on the tax declaration of the property; must be a direct payment to the owner.
SEC. 10. NO LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS SHALL BE PASSED.
• Reserved (police) power – all contracts are made subject to an implied reservation of
the protective power of the State and that therefore statutes, which validly exercise
this reserved power does not impair contracts.
• To fall within the prohibition, the change must:
1. Impair the obligations in an existing contract – with reference to the parties,
not non-parties; and
2. Impairment must be substantial.
Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934) - minessota mortgage
moratorium law : Not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as
between the parties, but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read
into contracts as a postulate of the legal order.
• Mortgage Moratorium Law is a valid exercise of police power.
• The extension granted does not substantially affect the object of the obligations in the
contracts of mortgage of the parties herein.
• Criteria for valid exercise not violative of non-impairment clause:
1. Presence of an emergency which furnishes a proper occasion for the
exercise of the reserved power of the State to protect the vital interests of
the community.
2. Legislation must be addressed to a legitimate end;
3. Relief afforded and justified by the emergency could only be of a character
appropriate for that emergency; and
4. Legislation is temporary in operation.
Rutter v. Esteban (1953) – ra342 moratorium law : The obligations have been pending since
1945 as a result of the issuance of EOs 25 and 32 and at present their enforcement is still
inhibited because of the enactment of RA 352 and would continue to be unenforceable during
the 8-year period granted to prewar debtors to afford them an opportunity to rehabilitate
themselves is unreasonable.
Abella v. NLRC (1987) – art284 of labor code : The purpose of the article is the protection of
the workers whose employment is terminated because of the closure of establishment and
reduction of personnel. As correctly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the
article refers to employment benefits to farm hands who were not parties to petitioner’s lease
contract with the owner of the hacienda.
28
Presley v. Bel-Air Village Association (1991) – deed of restriction; hot pan de sal store :
Contractual stipulations on the use of the land even if said conditions are annotated on the
Torrens title can be impaired if necessary to reconcile with the legitimate exercise of police
power.
Miners Association v. Factoran (1995) – transitory provision; product-sharing agreement
: There is a reservation clause in the transitory provisions wherein mining agreements granted
after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution may be subjected to any and all modifications or
alterations which Congress may adopt. Moreover, there is no automatic conversion to product-
sharing agreement because the same generally involves negotiations.
Ortigas v. Feati (1979) – deed of restriction; zoning ordinance : The contractual obligations
so assumed cannot prevail over the zoning resolution of the Municipality of Mandaluyong
converting the same land to a commercial zone which was validly exercised as a police power
measure.
SWS v. COMELEC (2015) – disclosure of names of subscribers : Not only an important or
substantial state interest, but even a compelling one anchors the resolution’s requirement of
disclosing subscribers to election surveys. It effects the constitutional policy of “guaranteeing
equal access to opportunities for public service and is impelled by the imperative of fair
elections.
Philconsa v. Enriquez (1994) – general appropriations act; military equipment : The
President’s purpose for vetoing the provision is that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
Modernization Act is to provide funds for all purposes. However, in the vetoed provision, it
merely specified the subject of such funds.
SEC. 11. FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES AND ADEQUATE LEGAL
ASSISTANCE SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO ANY PERSON BY REASON OF POVERTY.
In Re: Exemption From the Payment of Sherriff’s Expenses (2013) – sheriff’s expenses as
legal fees : Requiring PAO’s clients to pay sheriff’s expenses, despite their exemption from the
payment of docket and other legal fees, would effectively fetter their free access to the courts
thereby negating the laudable intent of Congress in enacting R.A. No. 9406.
• Sheriff’s expenses – the amount deposited to the Clerk of Court upon filing of the
complaint to defray the actual travel expenses of the sheriff, process server or other
court- authorized persons in the service of summons, subpoena and other court
processes that would be issued relative to the trial of the case.
• Sheriff’s fees – those imposed by the court for services rendered to a party incident to
the proceedings before it.
• The Court clarified that sheriff’s expenses are not considered as legal fees. The
intention to make a distinction between the two charges is clear; otherwise, the Rules
would not have used different designations (fee and expenses).
• The Court hereby authorizes the officials and employees of PAO to serve summons,
subpoena and other court processes pursuant to Section 3, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court. Such authority shall be limited only to cases involving their client.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

o The amount to be defrayed in the service of summons, subpoena and other
court processes in behalf of its clients would consequently have to be taken
from the operating expenses of PAO.
SEC. 12. (1) ANY PERSON UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE SHALL
HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO HAVE COMPETENT
AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL PREFERABLY OF HIS OWN CHOICE. IF THE PERSON CANNOT
AFFORD THE SERVICES OF COUNSEL, HE MUST BE PROVIDED WITH ONE . THESE RIGHTS CANNOT
BE WAIVED EXCEPT IN WRITING AND IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL.
(2) NO TORTURE, FORCE, VIOLENCE, THREAT, INTIMIDATION, OR ANY OTHER MEANS WHICH
VITIATE THE FREE WILL SHALL BE USED AGAINST HIM. SECRET DETENTION PLACES, SOLITARY,
INCOMMUNICADO, OR OTHER SIMILAR FORMS OF DETENTION ARE PROHIBITED.
(3) ANY CONFESSION OR ADMISSION OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION OR SECTION
17 HEREOF SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.
(4) THE LAW SHALL PROVIDE FOR PENAL AND CIVIL SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS
SECTION AS WELL AS COMPENSATION TO THE REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS OF TORTURE OR
SIMILAR PRACTICES , AND THEIR FAMILIES.
Ø The difference here with the exclusionary rule in section 2, there is coercion involved. It is
not yet existing, but it comes into existence because of such coercion. It cannot be used
against the accused, but against the prosecution.
Ø Miranda Rights:
1. Right to be informed of the right to remain silent;
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law;
3. Right to counsel;
4. If you cannot afford one, the court will provide one for you.
Custodial Investigation, in General – Definition
People v. Camat (1996) – robbery with homicide; admission given during interrogation :
These rights begin to be available where the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into
police custody, and the police carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting
incriminating statements.
• Custodial investigation – any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after
a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action
in any significant way.
• Process in custodial investigation:
1. At the time the person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer
to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant
of arrest, if any.
2. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to
counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used against him.
29
3. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a
relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means – by telephone
if possible – or by letter or messenger.
4. It shall be the duty of the arresting officer to see to it that this is
accomplished.
5. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of
counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or
appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by
anyone on his behalf.
6. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall be made in writing
and with the assistance of counsel.
7. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
inadmissible in evidence.
• Absent any showing that appellants were duly advised of the mandatory guarantees
under the Bill of Rights, their confessions made before the patrolman are inadmissible
against them and cannot be used in support of their conviction.
Custodial Investigation, in General – Rationale
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – incommunicado interrogation resulting to self-incriminating
statements : The Court stated the following reasons for the Miranda rights:
1. Right to remain silent – such a warning is an absolute prerequisite in overcoming the
inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere.
2. Anything said can and will be used against the him – in order to make him aware
not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it.
3. Right to have counsel present at the interrogation – to assure that the individual's
right to choose between silence and speech remains unfettered throughout the
interrogation process.
o The need for counsel to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege
comprehends not merely a right to consult with counsel prior to questioning,
but also to have counsel present during any questioning if the defendant so
desires.
4. If he cannot afford one, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him – without this
additional warning, the admonition of the right to consult with counsel would often
be understood as meaning only that he can consult with a lawyer if he has one or has
the funds to obtain one.
The Right to Counsel – When Presence of Counsel is Required
Tanenggee v. People (2013) – internal audit conducted by administrative investigation in
Metrobank; accused signed a written statement in the form of question and answers : The
constitutional proscription against the admissibility of admission or confession of guilt obtained
in violation of Sec. 12 is applicable only in custodial interrogation.
• Here, petitioner’s written statement was given during an administrative inquiry
conducted by his employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he allegedly
committed in the course of his employment.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

The Right to Counsel – Effective and Vigilant Counsel Defined
People v. Sunga (2003) – accused voluntarily gave answers to questions and at the end of
the investigation affixed his signature on the recorded statement : The independent counsel
for the accused in custodial investigations cannot be a special counsel, public or private
prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse
to the accused.
• The right to counsel was denied Sunga during his execution of Exhibit "A" - admission
before the police on the ground that the counsel who assisted him, Atty. Agustin
Rocamora, was the City Legal Officer of Puerto Princesa.
• A legal officer of the city, like Atty. Rocamora, provides legal aid and support to the
mayor and the city in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, which
includes maintenance of peace and order and, as such, his office is akin to that of a
prosecutor who unquestionably cannot represent the accused during custodial
investigation due to conflict of interest.
o That Sunga chose him to be his counsel, even if true, did not render his
admission admissible.
Ø Who are not independent counsel:
1. Special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a
municipal attorney whose interest is adverse to that of the accused;
2. Mayor;
3. Barangay captain; or
4. Any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused.
People v. Ibañez (2013) – police line-up; handwritten confession implicated accused : The
Court made the following ruling:
• Police line-up – the law enforcers must state relevant details surrounding the police
line-up which renders the out-of-court identification as reliable.
• Confession – Nabligas was already under custodial investigation by the authorities
when he executed the alleged written confession. He was not accompanied by
effective and vigilant counsel when he made the extrajudicial confession.
When Custodial Investigation May Not Apply – Voluntary Surrender
People v. Chavez (2014) – accused accompanied by mother to voluntarily surrender : Even
those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer must be apprised of their Miranda
rights.
• The mother’s statement is considered hearsay, with no evidentiary value, since
Chavez’s mother was never presented as a witness during trial to testify on her
statement.
• Requisites for confession to be admissible:
1. Voluntary;
2. Assistance of competent and independent counsel;
3. Expressed;
4. In writing; and
5. Signed or thumb-marked.
30
When Custodial Investigation May Not Apply – Police Line-up
Gamboa v. Judge Cruz (1988) – during police line-up, complainant pointed to the accused
stating that he is a companion. Thereafter, the accused was told to sit down in front of the
complainant while the latter was interrogated : The moment there is a move or even an urge
of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information (any brain
activity) which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then
and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in
writing and in the presence of counsel. (Only stand up; If only 2 people in line-up, it could be a
violation if the accused is being singled out)
When Custodial Investigation May Not Apply – Marked Money
People v. Linsangan (1991) – signed marked money without counsel : His conviction was
not based on the presence of his initials on the marked money, but on the fact that the trial court
believed the testimony of the policemen that they arrested him while he was actually engaged
in selling marijuana cigarettes to a member of the arresting party.
• The Court disregarded the issue on admissibility of the marked money, but by analogy
with Ang Chun Kit, it would not have been admissible.
• Personal suggestion : subscribe to Atty. Santiago’s position that as long as there is
brain activity, the Court would rule that the same is inadmissible.
When Custodial Investigation May Not Apply – Booking Sheets
People v. Ang Chun Kit (1995) – signing booking sheets without counsel : The Booking
Sheet is merely a statement of the accused's being booked and of the date which accompanies
the fact of an arrest. It is a police report and may be useful in charges of arbitrary detention
against the police themselves. It is not an extra-judicial statement and cannot be the basis of a
judgment of conviction.
The Exclusionary Rule – When Must the Objection be Raised
Macasiray v. People (1998) – extrajudicial confession was offered at the conclusion of the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution, the accused objected to its admissibility on
the ground that it was given without counsel : Objection to evidence must be made after the
evidence is formally offered.
• Offer – made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified,
specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time,
and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made.
• The identification of the document before it is marked as an exhibit does not constitute
the formal offer of the document as evidence for the party presenting it.
Additional Case
Galman v. Ver (1985) – PD 1886 was promulgatedcreating an ad hoc Fact Finding Board
aka the Agrava Board for investigation of Sen. Aquino’s Assassination : The Board is in
truth and in fact, and to all legal intents andpurposes, an entity charged, not only with the
function of determining thefacts and circumstances surrounding the killing, but more
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

importantly, thedetermination of the person or persons criminally responsible therefore sothat Right to Bail
they may be brought before the bar of justice.
• The investigation therefor is also geared, as any other similar investigationof its sort, Yap v. CA (2001) – amount of bail same amount as money misappropriated : Bail is not
to the ascertainment and/or determination of the culprit orculprits, their consequent intended as a punishment, nor as a satisfaction of civil liability which should necessarily await
prosecution and ultimately, their conviction. the judgment of the appellate court.
• To fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability of which petitioner is charged
Special Penal Laws (in this case, P5,500,000.00) is to permit the impression that the amount paid as bail
is an exaction of the civil liability that accused is charged of.
Ø RA 9745 (Anti-Torture Act) • Duties of a judge:
o Criminalizes torture and inhuman degrading treatment or punishment. 1. Notify the prosecution of hearing for bail;
Ø RA 7438 (Rights Under Custodial Investigation) 2. Conduct hearing for such application, even if prosecution does not present
o If invited, it depends if you are already being subjected to a custodial evidence;
investigation. If yes, the rights are present. 3. Decide if the evidence of guilt is strong; and
4. If evidence is not strong, grant bail.
Sec. 12 Rights
Government of Hong Kong v. Olalia (2007) - extradition : Although there is no law providing
When available Not available bail to the extradite, there is also no prohibition from exercising his constitutional right to bail.
1. After a person has been taken into 1. When going through an audit in an The right of the extradite to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of the treaties concerning
custody. administrative proceeding. the promotion and protection of human rights.
2. When a person is otherwise deprived 2. Police line-up, unless there is a move • If bail can be granted in deportation cases, it should also be allowed in extradition
of his freedom of action in any to elicit admission (brain activity). cases. Both are administrative proceedings where the innocence and guilt of the
significant way. 3. Admission to someone not a public person detained is not an issue.
3. When the investigation is being officer.
undertaken by the government with 4. Signing of booking sheets. Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (2015) – plunder case; humanitarian reason : It is relevant to
respect to a criminal offense. observe that granting provisional liberty to the petitioner will then enable him to have his
4. Marked money. medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to by competent physicians in the
hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid in his adequate preparation of his defense but,
Requisites of a Valid Waiver 1. In writing;
more importantly, will guarantee his appearance in court for the trial.
of Sec. 12 Rights 2. In the presence of counsel.
• Court granted bail for the following reasons:
1. That the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
SEC. 13. ALL PERSONS, EXCEPT THOSE CHARGED WITH OFFENSES PUNISHABLE BY RECLUSION 2. That there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.
PERPETUA WHEN EVIDENCE OF GUILD IS STRONG, SHALL, BEFORE CONVICTION, BE BAILABLE
BY SUFFICIENT SURETIES, OR BE RELEASED ON RECOGNIZANCE AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW. Excessive Bail
THE RIGHT TO BAIL SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED EVEN WHEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IS SUSPENDED. EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED. De La Camara v. Enage (1971) – multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder affected
amount of bail : No doctrine refinement may elicit approval if to do so would be to reduce the
right to bail to a barren form of words. Not only is the order complained of absolutely bereft of
Ø Bail – provisional liberty – mode short of confinement which would, with reasonable support in law, but it flies in the face of common sense. It is not too much to say that it is at war
certainty, insure the attendance of the accused at his trial; takes the form of a deposit of with the command of reason.
money or its equivalent as a guarantee of attendance. Failure to appear would forfeit the
• There is reason to believe that any person in the position of petitioner would under the
deposit.
circumstances be unable to resists thoughts of escaping from confinement, reduced as
o Purpose:
he must have been to a state of desperation.
1. To honor the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond
• Factors affecting bail:
reasonable doubt; and
1. Ability to post bail;
2. To enable him to prepare his defenses without being subject to
2. Nature of the offense;
punishment prior to conviction.
3. Imposable penalty;
4. Character and reputation of the accused;
5. Health of the accused;
6. Strength of the evidence;
31 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

7. Probability of appearing for trial;
8. Forfeiture of other bonds;
9. Whether accused was a fugitive when arrested; and
10. If under bond in another case.
Additional Case
Commendador v. De Villa (1991) – right to bail of soldier under court martial : A soldier
under court martial does not enjoy the right to bail because of the disciplinary structure of the
military and because soldiers are allowed the fiduciary right to bear arms and can cause great
havoc.
People v. Abner (1950) – bail on recognizance : a person (there are qualifications) as surety
has an obligation of record entered into before a court guaranteeing the appearance of the
accused for trial. It is in the nature of a contract between the surety and the State.
Rules on Bail
General Rule Exceptions
…unless he is:
(1) Charged with a capital offense, or with an
Any person, before being convicted of any
offense not punishable with reclusion
criminal offense, shall be bailable…
perpetua or life imprisonment; and
(2) Evidence of his guilt is strong.
Bail is discretionary when:
(1) Conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment; or
(2) If the RTC imposed a penalty of
imprisonment exceeding 6 years, or bail
shall be cancelled upon showing of the
following circumstances:
(a) Recidivism, quasi-recidivism, or
Bail is a matter of right. habitual delinquency;
(b) Escapee;
(c) Committed offense while on parole,
probation or conditional pardon;
(d) Circumstances of his case indicate
probability of flight if released on
bail; and
(e) Undue risk that he may commit
another crime during pendency of
appeal.
32
SEC. 14. (1) NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CRIMINAL OFFENSE WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.
(2) IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL BE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL
THE CONTRARY IS PROVED, AND SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND
COUNSEL, TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM, TO
HAVE A SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL, AND PUBLIC TRIAL, TO MEET THE WITNESSES FACE TO FACE, AND
TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND THE
PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE IN HIS BEHALF. HOWEVER, AFTER ARRAIGNMENT, TRIAL MAY
PROCEED NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF THE ACCUSED : PROVIDED, THAT HE HAS BEEN
DULY NOTIFIED AND HIS FAILURE TO APPEAR IS UNJUSTIFIABLE.
Ø Due process – that procedure established by law to fully protect life, liberty, and property
of the citizens of the State.
Presumption of Innocence
Ø Reasonable doubt – that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an
inability after such investigation to let the mind rest upon certainty of guilt.
Ø Equipoise rule – where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced,
the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused.
US v. Luling (1916) – Act of Congress provides that evidence of customs employee
soliciting, demanding is prima facie evidence that such is contrary to law : The state having
the right to declare what acts are criminal, within certain well defined limitations, has a right to
specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as what proof shall constitute prima
facie evidence of guilt, and then to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such act
or acts are innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent or intention.
• No constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing that proof by the state of
some material fact or facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and that then
the burden is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of showing that such act or acts
are innocent and are committed without unlawful intention.
Dumlao v. COMELEC (1980) – BP 51 provides that any person who has committed any
act of disloyalty to the State, including acts amounting to subversion, insurrection,
rebellion or other similar crimes, shall not be qualified for any of the offices covered by
the Act; a judgment of conviction shall be conclusive evidence, and the filing of charges
for the same shall be prima facie evidence of such fact : The challenged proviso contravenes
the constitutional presumption of innocence, as a candidate is disqualified from running for
public office on the ground alone that charges have been filed against him before a civil or
military tribunal.
Ø Preventive suspension is not a penalty therefore no violation of right to be presumed
innocent.
Ø Elements of right to be heard:
1. Right to be present at trial;
2. Right to counsel;
3. Right to impartial judge;
4. Right to confrontation;
5. Right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

Ø Qualities of a hearer:
1. Fairness; and
2. Impartiality.
Right to Counsel
Ø Counsel de officio – may be given by the courts during arraignment.
Ø Stenographic notes showing failure of the courts to offer counsel is not enough to overturn
a conviction. The presumption is that the courts followed proper procedure.
People v. Holgado (1950) – “do you have an attorney or are you going to plead guilty?” :
The Court laid down the following duties of judges regarding the right to counsel:
1. It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have attorney before being arraigned;
2. After giving such information the court must ask him if he desires the aid of an
attorney;
3. If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court must assign attorney de officio
to defend him; and
4. If the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the court must grant him a
reasonable time therefor.
o Not only did such a question herein fail to inform the accused that it was his
right to have an attorney before arraignment, but, what is worse, the
question was so framed that it could have been construed by the accused as
a suggestion from the court that he plead guilt if he had no attorney.
5. Where no member of the bar is available, the court may appoint any resident of good
repute, probity and ability.
Ø Even if the person consents to answer questions without the assistance of counsel, the
moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the investigation, the interrogation must cease
until an attorney is present.
Right to be Informed
Ø Criminal information must include:
1. Name of the accused;
2. Designation given to the offense by the statute;
3. Acts or omissions done constituting the offense;
4. Name of the offended party;
5. Approximate time and date of the commission of the crime; and
6. Place of commission of the offense.
People v. Regala (1982) – accused was convicted of murder with assault upon an agent of
person in authority : The appellant cannot be convicted of the complex crime of homicide with
assault upon an agent of a person in authority because the information filed against appellant
did not allege the essential elements of assault that the accused then knew that, before or at the
time of the assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority.
Relationship
33
People v. Regino (2009) – accused not stepfather, but actually just common-law spouse of
victim’s mother : The age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be both
alleged in the information and proven during the trial, otherwise, the death penalty cannot be
imposed.
• General Rule: If the information designates a crime, and you have been proven to
have committed another crime, then you may be acquitted.
o Exception: For example, if you were charged with murder but you actually
homicide.
Date of Commission of Crime
People v. Ching (2007) – not exact dates alleged : It is not necessary to state in the information
the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense,
and that the offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the
actual date of its commission. (Sec. 11, Rule 110 of Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
Right to Speedy Trial
Ø Elements to be considered:
1. Lenth of delay;
2. Reason for delay;
3. Effort of the defendant to assert his right; and
4. Prejudice caused to the defendant.
Ø “Two-edged sword” because it can work in favor of or against the accused.
Conde v. Rivera (1924) – forced to respond to 5 information; appeared at hearings on 8
occasions only to see the case postponed : Where a prosecuting officer, without good cause,
secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period
of time, as in this instance for more than a year, the accused is entitled to relief by:
1. Proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information; or
2. If he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.
Additional case
Esguerra v. CFI (1954) – defense of denial of speedy trial : If an accused raises the defense
of denieal of speedy trail only on appeal, he is deemed to have already waived his defense.
Right to Impartial Trial
Mateo, Jr. v. Villaluz (1973) – judge where statement was notarized is same judge where
accused repudiates such on the ground of intimidation : Respondent Judge could not be
totally immune to what apparently was asserted before him in such extrajudicial statement.
Moreover, it is unlikely that he was not in the slightest bit offended by the affiant's turnabout
with his later declaration that there was intimidation by a government agent exerted on him.
• Respondent Judge was called upon to review a matter on which he had previously
given his opinion.
• A salutary norm is that he reflect on the probability that a losing party might nurture
at the back of his mind the thought that the judge had unmeritoriously tilted the scales
of justice against him.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

Right to a Public Trial
Ø Trial is public when attendance is open to all irrespective of relationship to the defendant.
o Exception: When the evidence presented may be characterized as offensive to
decency or public morals, the proceeding may be limited to friends, relatives and
counsel.
In Re: Oliver (1948) – one-man grand jury : Grand juries investigate, and the usual end of
their investigation is either a report, a 'no-bill' or an indictment. They do not try and they do not
convict.
• In the case before us, the petitioner was called as a witness to testify in secret before
a one-man grand jury conducting a grand jury investigation.
o However, the investigation became a 'trial,' the grand jury became a judge,
and the witness became an accused charged with contempt of court-all in
secret.
• Contempt may be cited, when (Terry case) : The 'violence and misconduct' of both
the heckler and the marshal's assailant occurred within the 'personal view' of the judge,
'under his own eye,' and actually interrupted the trial of a case then under way.
• Contempt proceeding is not necessarily criminal, but because of the penalty
prescribed, it seems penal.
Right to Confrontation, to Cross-examine, or to Meet Witnesses Face to Face
Ø Purpose of right to confrontation:
1. Afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the witness by cross-
examination; and
2. For the judge to observe the deportation of the witness.
Ø Exception to right to confrontation:
1. Dying declaration – declaration made in extremity; when the party is at the point
of death; and
2. Trial in absentia.
Ø Right to continuance (postponement) by reason of absence of witness:
1. Witness is material;
2. Party is not negligent;
3. Witness will be available at the time desired; and
4. No similar evidence could be obtained.
Tampar v. Usman (1991) – yamin : Said provision effectively deprives a litigant of his
constitutional right to due process. It denies a party his right to confront the witnesses against
him and to cross-examine them.
• Yamin rules:
1. If the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his claim, the defendant shall take
an oath and judgment shall be rendered in his favor by the Court.
2. Should the defendant refuse to take an oath, the plaintiff shall affirm his
claim under oath in which case, judgment shall be rendered in his favor.
3. Should the plaintiff refuse to affirm his claim under oath, the case shall be
dismissed.
34
Trial in Absentia; Right to be Present
Carredo v. People – waiver of appearance; called to appear for identification purposes :
Such waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that the prosecution is thereby
deprived of its right to require the presence of the accused for purposes of identification by its
witnesses which is vital for the conviction of the accused.
• The accused may waive his right but not his duty or obligation to the court.
• However, he may be absent if he unqualifiedly admits in open court after arraignment
that he is the person named as the defendant in the case on trial.
Ø Scope of right to be present at trial – between arraignment and promulgation of sentence.
Ø Requisites of trial in absentia:
1. Accused already arraigned;
2. Duly notified of the trial; and
3. Failure to appear is unjustifiable.
SEC. 15. THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED EXCEPT
IN CASES OF INVASION OR REBELLION, WHEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT.
Ø Writ of habeas corpus – writ directed to the person detaining another commanding him
to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause
of his caption and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatever the court or judge
awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.
o Purpose: To inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from
voluntary, and to relieve any person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.
o Primary requisite is deprivation of liberty:
1. External or moral compulsion;
2. Founded or groundless fear; and
3. Erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor
to cause harm if not blindly obeyed.
• If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a
person at the mercy of another.
o Once charges are filed in court, habeas corpus is no longer available.
Ø Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus – right to have an immediate determination of the
legality of the deprivation of physical liberty.
o Requisites of suspension:
1. Existence of actual invasion or rebellion; and
2. Public safety requires the suspension.
o Effect: Temporarily prevent courts from inquiring into the legality of the
detention.
o Does not come with the suspension of bail.
• Filing of formal charges is deemed an executive waiver of the
suspension.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

SEC. 16 ALL PERSONS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THEIR CASES
BEFORE ALL JUDICIAL, QUASI -JUDICIAL, OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES.
Ø Difference with Sec. 14 is that the it covers only the trial phase of criminal cases, whereas
this section covers all phases of any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative proceeding.
Ø Remedy: Dismissal through mandamus.
Ø Purpose: Prevent loss of party’s right to present evidence.
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
Binay v. Sandiganbayan (1999) – malversation and violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act : The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is
deemed violated only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when
without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party
having his case tried.
• As compared with the case of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, therein the ombudsman
rendered its report after 3 years considering the files were not voluminous. Herein, the
files were voluminous but the ombudsman was able to render its report in less than 3
years.
SEC. 17. NO PERSON SHALL BE COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF.
Right Against Self-incrimination
Ø General rule: Compulsory production of private books and documents of the owner is
compelling him to be a witness against himself.
o Exceptions:
1. When pursuant to a subpoena issued by the court; and
2. When records are required by law to be kept in order that there may be
suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects
of governmental regulation and the enforcement of restrictions validly
established.
US v. Navarro (1904) – Art. 483 of Penal Code provides that one who illegally detains
another and fails to give information concerning his whereabouts, or does not prove that
he set him at liberty, shall be punished with cadena temporal (temporary sentence) in its
maximum degree to life imprisonment. : Unconstitutional because the burden is put upon the
accused of giving evidence if he desires to lessen the penalty, or, in other words, of criminating
himself, for the very statement of the whereabouts of the victim or the proof that the defendant
set him at liberty amounts to a confession that the defendant unlawfully detained the person.
• For failure on the part of the defendant to testify regarding the whereabouts of the
person deprived of his liberty, or to prove that he was set at liberty, the punishment
may be increased from imprisonment for a term of six years to life imprisonment.
US v. Tan Teng (1912) – body inspection used against him; gonorrhea :Tthe prohibition of
compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself, is a prohibition of the use
35
of physical or moral compulsion, to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his
body as evidence, when it may be material.
• The prohibition contained in section 5 of the Philippine Bill that a person shall not be
compelled to be a witness against himself, is simply a prohibition against legal process
to extract from the defendant's own lips, against his will, an admission of his guilt.
US v. Ong Siu Hong (1917) – accused was forced to discharge morphine from his mouth :
It would be a forced construction of the paragraph of the Philippine Bill of Rights in question to
hold that any article, substance, or thing taken from a person accused of crime could not be
given in evidence.
Villaflor v. Summers (1920) – petitioner cited for contempt because of not complying with
order to be subjected to pregnancy test : An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is
permissible. The proviso is that torture of force shall be avoided.
• It is a reasonable presumption that in an examination by reputable and disinterested
physicians due care will be taken not to use violence and not to embarrass the patient
any more than is absolutely necessary.
Beltran v. Samson (1929) – forced to write down the dictation of judge in case of
falsification : Writing is something more than moving the body, or the hands, or the fingers;
writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of intelligence and
attention; and in the case at bar writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to
determine whether or not he is the falsifier, as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states.
Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr. (1962) – committee was created, and requested petitioner to take
the witness stand and be sworn to as witness for a charge of graft and corruption : A person
may not be compelled to testify in an action against him for a penalty or to answer any question
as a witness which would subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, where the penalty or forfeiture
is imposed as a vindication of the public justice of the state.
• Although the investigation was based on an administrative charge, it did not anymore
seek to remove the petitioner from his position (as he no longer held the same), but to
enforce the provisions of RA 1379 (Anti-Graft Law), particularly for the forfeiture of
property out of proportion to his salary.
Pascual, Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners (1969) – administrative case of immorality and
malpractice; board required petitioner to testify : In an administrative hearing against a
medical practitioner for alleged malpractice, respondent Board of Medical Examiners cannot,
consistently with the self-incrimination clause, compel the person proceeded against to take the
witness stand without his consent.
• Result of the investigation would be loss of license which is a form of penalty.
Nature of Case State Witness / Accused Ordinary Witness
• He may refuse to take • He may not refuse to
the witness stand take the witness stand.
during the trial or
Criminal Case
custodial investigation. • He may refuse to
• If on trial, one may answer an
refuse to answer. incriminating question.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

• He may not refuse to 3. Not unacceptable to contemporary society; and
take the witness stand. 4. Not excessive.
Civil Case • He may refuse to
answer an People v. Estoista (1953) – illegal possession of firearms 5 to 10 years of imprisonment and
incriminating question. fine : The constitutionality of an act of the legislature is not to be judged in the light of
• He may refuse to take exceptional cases.
the witness stand if it is • If imprisonment from 5 to 10 years is out of proportion to the present case in view of
Administrative Case criminal in nature like certain circumstances, the law is not to be declared unconstitutional for this reason.
forfeiture or • Confinement from 5 to 10 years for possessing of carrying firearm is not cruel or
deportation. unusual, having due regard to the prevalent conditions which the law proposes to
suppress or curb.

SEC. 18. (1) NO PERSON SHALL BE DETAINED SOLELY BY REASON OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS
AND ASPIRATIONS.
(2) NO INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN ANY FORM SHALL EXIST EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR A
CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED.
Ø Involuntary servitude – every condition of enforced or compulsory service of one to
another no matter under what form such servitude may be disguised.
o Exceptions:
1. If such is punishment where a party is convicted;
2. In the interest of national defense, citizens may be compelled to render
personal military or civil service;
3. Return-to-work order;
4. Merchants and marines compelled to remain until the end of voyage;
5. A posse comitatus – a male at a certain age may be validly pressed into
service for the apprehension of criminals through legitimate exercise
of police power; and
6. Parental authority.
SEC. 19. (1) EXCESSIVE FINES SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN
PUNISHMENT INFLICTED. NEITHER SHALL DEATH PENALTY BE IMPOSED , UNLESS, FOR
COMPELLING REASONS INVOLVING HEINOUS CRIMES , THE CONGRESS HEREAFTER PROVIDES
FOR IT. ANY DEATH PENALTY ALREADY IMPOSED SHALL BE REDUCED TO RECLUSION
PERPETUA.
(2) THE EMPLOYMENT OF PHYSICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, OR DEGRADING PUNISHMENT AGAINST
ANY PRISONER OR DETAINEE OR THE USE OF SUBSTANDARD OR INADEQUATE PENAL
FACILITIES UNDER SUBHUMAN CONDITIONS SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW.
Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Punishment; Excessive Fines
Ø A fine is excessive when it is disproportionate to the circumstance of the offense.
Ø Guidelines to determine if not cruel and unusual:
1. Punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to human dignity;
2. Not arbitrary;
People v. Echegaray (1997) – RA 7659 Death Penalty Law for heinous crimes : Capital
punishment ought not to be abolished solely because it is substantially repulsive, if infinitely
less repulsive than the acts which invoke it.
• Heinous crimes – the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being
grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and
outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just
civilized and ordered society.
• Conditions for the imposition of death penalty:
1. Congress define or describe what is meant by heinous crimes;
2. Heinous crimes should be involved; and
3. Congress should be singularly motivated by compelling reason involving
heinous crimes.
Corpuz v. People (2014) – additional 1 year for each P10,000 above P20,000 in crime of
estafa : The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments is generally aimed at the form or
character of the punishment rather than its severity in respect of duration or amount, and applies
to punishments which public sentiment has regarded as cruel or obsolete, for instance, those
inflicted at the whipping post, or in the pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel,
disemboweling, and the like.
• Fine and imprisonment would not thus be within the prohibition.
• The Court is ill-equipped, has no resources, and lacks sufficient personnel to conduct
public hearings and sponsor studies and surveys to validly effect these changes in our
Revised Penal Code. This function clearly and appropriately belongs to Congress.
SEC. 20. NO PERSON SHALL BE IMPRISONED FOR DEBT OR NON-PAYMENT OF A POLL TAX.
Ø Debt – liability to pay money growing out of contract, express or implied.
o Exception:
1. Fraudulent debt constitutes a crime (estafa); and
2. Debtor has been duly convicted.
Ø Poll tax – cedula or residence tax.

36 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW


Imprisonment for Debt
Lozano v. Martinez (1986) – constitutionality of BP 22 : The gravamen of the offense
punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is
dishonored upon its presentation for payment.
• The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of
the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks
and putting them in circulation.
PROBLEM: If 1M is borrowed for investment purposes, with a promise to pay the principal
amount plus 20% interest per month. After 6 months, all the money was lost.
• The lender cannot file a criminal case of estafa if no fraud is present.
• Contractual obligation not criminal in nature.
PROBLEM: …if simultaneous with the borrowing, the enticement is that he would be issuing
checks with 20% interest.
• Estafa and BP 22.
• It is not simply a contractual debt, but the lender was enticed to lend with the issuance
of checks with interest.
SEC. 21. NO PERSON SHALL BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME
OFFENSE. IF AN ACT IS PUNISHED BY LAW AND AN ORDINANCE, CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL
UNDER EITHER SHALL CONSTITUTE A BAR TO ANOTHER PROSECUTION FOR THE SAME ACT.
Ø Requisites for valid defense of double jeopardy:
1. First jeopardy must have attached prior to the 2nd; and
§ Evidence of self-defense amounts to withdrawal of his original plea.
§ A defective complaint does not attaach jeopardy upon a grant of a
motion to quash.
§ No jeopardy attaches if a court has no jurisdiction.
2. First jeopardy must have terminated.
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.
Ø No jeopardy in:
1. Ordinary appeal;
2. Fact-finding;
3. Certiorari;
4. Impeachment; and
5. Inquiry in aid of legislation.
Ø Types of jeopardy:
1. One act constitutes separate offenses, conviction/acquittal in one does not bar
prosecution for the other because one’s essential element is not an essential
element in the other.
2. One act constitutes separate offenses, except that one is prescribed by law and
the other by ordinance.
37
Dismissal at Preliminary Investigation; No Jeopardy
Attachment of Jeopardy
People v. Ylagan (1933) – accused pleaded not guilty; private prosecutor and provincial
prosecutor moved for the dismissal; 11 days later acting provincial prosecutor filed
another information charging the same accused with the same offense of serious physical
injuries : The rule against double jeopardy protects the accused not against the peril of second
punishment, but against being again tried for the same offense.
• Requisites for double jeopardy:
1. In a court of competent jurisdiction;
2. Upon a valid complaint or information;
3. After being arraigned; and
4. After pleading to the complaint or information.
• The mere silence of the defendant or his failure to object to the dismissal of the case
does not constitute a consent within the meaning of section 28 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
• The mere calling of a witness would not add a particle to the danger, annoyance, and
vexation suffered by the accused, after going through the process of being arrested,
subjected to a preliminary investigation, arraigned, and required to plead and stand
trial.
Termination of Jeopardy; Non-termination
Ø Termination shall bar:
1. Another prosecution for the same offense charged;
2. Any attempt to commit the same;
3. Or a frustration thereof;
4. Or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
complaint/information.
Ø An appeal by the prosecution from the Order of Dismissal by the trial court shall not
constitute Double Jeopardy if:
1. Dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express consent of the defendant;
2. Dismissal is not an acquittal based upon consideration of the evidence or the
merits of the case;
3. Question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that should
the dismissal be found incorrect, the case would have to be remanded to the court
of origin for further proceedings, in order to determine guilt/innocence of the
defendant.
Ø A verbal dismissal is not final until written down and signed by the judge.
Bulaong v. People (1966) – accused was charged with rebellion; trial did not proceed; RA
1700 Anti-Subversion act was enacted; accused was arrested, information for rebellion
was amended, and another information for subversion : It is the conviction, acquittal of the
accused or dismissal or termination of the case that bars further prosecution for the same offense
or any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
• Accused has not been convicted or acquitted in the case filed in the Court of First
Instance against him for subversion. Neither was the said case dismissed or terminated
without his consent, for as stated, it is still pending in said court.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

• Remember that a violation of the right to speedy trial is a dismissal equivalent to an the technical elements constituting the first offense need be present in the technical definition
acquittal. It is not merely technical or procedural. of the second offense.
• General Rule: The constitutional protection against double jeopardy is not available
Rule on “Supervening Facts” where the second prosecution is for an offense that is different from the offense
charged in the first or prior prosecution, although both the first and second offenses
Melo v. People (1950) – accused was charged with frustrated homicide; accused pleaded may be based upon the same act or set of acts.
guilty; victim died from wounds; information amended to consummated homicide : It was o Exception: The constitutional protection, against double jeopardy is
proper for the court to dismiss the first information and order the filing of a new one for the available although the prior offense charged under an ordinance be different
reason that the proper offense was not charged in the former. from the offense charged subsequently under a national statute such as the
• If it appears at may time before the judgment that a mistake has been made in charging Revised Penal Code, provided that both offenses spring from the same act
the proper offense, the court may dismiss the original complaint or information and or set of acts.
order the filing of a new one charging the proper offense, provided the defendant
would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy, and may also require the witnesses
to give bail for their appearance at the trial. (sec. 13, rule 106 (2) of Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure) Indictment
• Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is 2. Before a competent Court
responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts First jeopardy 3. After arraignment
existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said attaches 4. After a valid plea
to be in second jeopardy if indicated for the new offense. • Defective complaint did not pace the accused in first
• Same-evidence test – identity between the two offenses when the evidence to support jeopardy
a conviction for one offense would be sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other.
• If case is dismissed before arraignment happens, first jeopardy never attaches.
• Provisional dismissal – when both parties agree to dismiss the case. It has a lifespan
1. By Acquittal
of 2 years to be revived. Otherwise, it will become a permanent dismissal and first
jeopardy attaches. 2. Final Conviction
First jeopardy 3. Dismissal without express consent of the accused
People v. Buling (1960) – information based on first investigation; amended information terminates 4. Dismissal on the merits
based on second investigation : Before filing informations for physical injuries, thorough • Verbal dismissal is not final until written and signed by a
physical and medical examinations of the injuries should first be made to avoid instances, like judge
the present, where by reason of the important Constitutional provision of double jeopardy, the 1. Same Evidence Test- whether the evidence needed for one case
accused can not be held to answer for the graver offense committed. will support a conviction in the other.
Second jeopardy 2. Identical
Same Offenses 3. In the attempted or frustrated form of another
attaches
4. Necessarily includes
People v. Tiozon (1991) – accused charged with violation of illegal possession of firearms
5. Necessarily included
and murder : Since the informations were for separate offense –– the first against a person and
the second against public peace and order — one cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under
the rule on double jeopardy. SEC. 22. NO EX POST FACTO LAW OR BILL OF ATTAINDER SHALL BE ENACTED.
• People v. Dominguez – where two different laws (or articles of the same code) defines
two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the
other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder
important act which is not an essential element of the other.
Ø Ex Post Facto law – a law that:
• If appealed by the accused himself, it is a waiver of first jeopardy.
1. Makes illegal an act that was legal when committed;
2. Aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed;
Ordinance and Statute
3. Increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed;
4. Changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier;
People v. Relova (1987) – accused was charged with violation of ordinance installing
5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty
electric wiring without approval, dismissed on prescription; another information was filed
or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful; and
for crime of theft RPC : For the constitutional plea of double jeopardy to be available, not all
38 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled.
Ø Bill of Attainder – an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of
some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.
• Elements:
1. There must be a law;
2. Imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily ascertainable
members of a group; and
3. Imposed directly by the law without judicial trial.
People v. Ferrer (1972) – Anti-Subversion Act; If the only issue to be determined is
whether or not the accused is a knowing and voluntary member, the law is still a bill of
attainder because it has expressly created a presumption of organizational guilt which the
accused can never hope to overthrow : It is only when a statute applies either to named
individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment
on them without a judicial trial does it become a bill of attainder. Nor is it enough that the statute
specify persons or groups in order that it may fall within the ambit of the prohibition against
bills of attainder. It is also necessary that it must apply retroactively and reach past conduct.
• The statute specifically required that membership must be knowing or active, with
specific intent to further the illegal objectives of the Party. That is what section 4
means when it requires that membership, to be unlawful, must be shown to have been
acquired "knowingly, willfully and by overt acts.
• Sec. 4 states that the prohibition applies only to acts committed after the approval of
this Act.
Virata v. Sandiganbayan (1991) – PCGG Charter : The executive orders, inclusive of
Executive Order No. 1 make it perfectly clear that any judgment of guilt in the amassing
acquisition of 'ill-gotten wealth' is to be handed down by a judicial tribunal, in this case the
Sandiganbayan, upon complaint filed an prosecuted by the PCGG.
• The sequestration, freeze/hold orders and provisional takeover are mere provisional
remedies applicable generally and/or peculiarly unearthed instances of ill-gotten
wealth.
• The PCGG charter does not alter the legal rules of evidence.
o The plaintiff’s burden is to establish preponderance of evidence in the
former (recovery of ill-gotten wealth), and proof beyond reasonable doubt
in the latter (misappropriation and theft).
Lacson v. Executive Secretary (1999) – Sandiganbayan jurisdiction; “principal” accused;
the word “principal” was removed : R.A. 8249 is not penal law. It is a substantive law on
jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which
prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations.
• Not being a penal law, the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged
as unconstitutional.
• As to the two-tiered appeal, the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in
nature that can be regulated by law.
• R.A. 8249 has preserved the accused's right to appeal to the Supreme Court to review
questions of law.
39
ARTICLE IV: CITIZENSHIP
SECTION 1. THE FOLLOWING ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES:
(1) THOSE WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS
CONSTITUTION;
(2) THOSE WHOSE FATHERS OR MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES;
(3) THOSE BORN BEFORE JANUARY 17, 1973, OF FILIPINO MOTHERS, WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP UPON REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY; AND
(4) THOSE WHO ARE NATURALIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
Ø Modes of acquiring citizenship:
1. Jus sanguinis – a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents
regardless of the place of his/her birth.
2. Jus soli – determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.
3. Naturalization – legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the
privilege of a native born.
Valles v. COMELEC (2000) – petitioner maintains that private respondent is an
Australian citizen based on (1) Alien Certificate of Registration; (2) Immigrant Certificate
of Residence; and (3) Australian Passport : The mere fact that private respondent was a holder
of an Australian passport and had an alien certificate of registration are not acts constituting an
effective renunciation of citizenship and do not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship.
• The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis.
1. Jus sanguinis – a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents
regardless of the place of his/her birth.
2. Jus soli – determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.
• In order that citizenship may be lost by renunciation, such renunciation must be
expressed.
• If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also
claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship.
• The filing of a certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship,
effectively removing any disqualification as a dual citizen.
o In the certificate of candidacy, one declares that he/she is a Filipino citizen
and that he/she will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto.
• Res judicata in citizenship:
1. A person’s citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where
said person is a party;
2. The Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the
resolution thereof; and
3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court.
Ong Chia v. Republic (2000) – petitioner failed to indicate all names by which he is known
: Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the
government and against the applicant.
• The rule that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered
shall not apply to land registration, cadastral and election cases, naturalization and
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or
in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
Children of Filipino Fathers or Mothers
Gatchalian v. Board of Commissioners (1991) – grandfather was native-born Filipino;
father was not : The period of effecting deportation of an alien after entry or a warrant of
exclusion based on a final order of the Board of Special Inquiry or Board of Commissioners
(BOC) are prescribe.
• Res judicata did not apply because (1) BOC decision did not categorically state that
Gatchalian is a Chinese; and
• Res judicata generally does not apply to questions of citizenship.
Tecson v. COMELEC (2004) – FPJ is a Filipino : In the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, it should be sound to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of residence of a
person at the time of his death was also his residence before death.
• Remember the following rules from the Family Code:
o Legitimate child follows the nationality of his father.
o Illegitimate child follows the nationality of his mother; unless:
§ Paternity is clear, then follows the nationality of his father.
o Before 1950, the father had to execute an affidavit of recognition in order
to legitimize the child.
o After 1950, legitimization is automatic; no need to execute affidavit of
recognition.
• Here, although Allan F. Poe recognized FPJ as his son in a document, FPJ was not
automatically deemed the son of Allan F. Poe unless he underwent the procedure
because FPJ was born before 1950.
Go v. Ramos (2009) – undesirable alien; deportation proceeding : An illegitimate child of a
Filipina need not perform any act to confer upon him all the rights and privileges attached to
citizens of the Philippines; he automatically becomes a citizen himself.
• However, it is the Court’s view that absent any evidence proving that Carlos is indeed
an illegitimate son of a Filipina, the aforestated established rule could not be applied
to him.
Gonzales v. Pennisi (2010) – PBA player for Red Bull : Documentary evidence of the
respondent is presumed regularly issued absent evidence of them being invalidated by
competent authority, and such documentary evidence prevails over the oral testimonies relied
on by petitioner in the deportation proceedings against respondent.
Cabiling v. Fernandez (2010) – under 1935 Constitution; failed to immediately register
election of Philippine citizenship in the local civil registrar : Where the election of citizenship
has in fact been done and documented within the constitutional and statutory timeframe, the
registration of the documents of election beyond the frame should be allowed if in the meanwhile
positive acts of citizenship have publicly, consistently, and continuously been done.
• “Reasonable time” – within 3 years from reaching the age of majority. However, It
may be extended under certain circumstances, as when the person concerned has
always considered himself a Filipino.
40
Those Born Before January 17, 1973, of Filipino Mothers, Who Elect Philippine
Citizenship Upon Reaching the Age of Majority
Co v. Electoral Tribunal (1991) – The Court interprets Section 1, Paragraph 3 above as
applying not only to those who elect Philippine citizenship after February 2, 1987 but also to
those who, having been born of Filipino mothers, elected citizenship before that date.
Republic v. Sagun (2012) – election of Philippine citizenship : If the citizenship of a person
was subject to challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to challenge under the new
charter even if the judicial challenge had not been commenced before the effectivity of the new
Constitution.
• The statutory formalities of electing Philippine citizenship are:
1. Statement of election under oath;
2. Oath of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the Philippines;
and
3. Registration of the statement of election and of the oath with the nearest
civil registry.
• The mere exercise of suffrage, continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines,
and other similar acts showing exercise of Philippine citizenship cannot take the place
of election of Philippine citizenship.
Those Who are Naturalized in Accordance with Law
So v. Republic (2007) – RA 9139 (Acquisition and Naturalization Act) : R.A. No. 9139 does
not apply to petitions for naturalization by judicial act.
• R.A. No. 9139 implies that a native born alien has the choice to apply for judicial
(C.A. No. 473) or administrative (R.A No. 9139) naturalization, subject to the
prescribed qualifications and disqualifications under both laws.
o In this case, the petitioner applied for naturalization by judicial act, though
at the time of the filing of his petition, even if the administrative
naturalization under R.A. No. 9139 was already available. Consequently,
the Court stated that his application should be governed by C.A. No. 473
because he applied for naturalization in a judicial proceeding.
• Credibility implies that such person:
1. Must have a good standing in the community;
2. Known to be honest and upright;
3. Reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and
4. His word may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the
applicant’s worthiness.
Loss of Citizenship
Yu v. Defensor-Santiago (1989) – Portugese passport : Express renunciation means
renunciation made known distinctly and explicitly, and not that which is implied.
• After having acquired Philippine citizenship, with full knowledge, petitioner resumed
his prior status as a Portuguese citizen by applying for a renewal of his Portuguese
passport, and representing himself as a Portuguese in official and commercial
documents.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

• The Court emphasized that Philippine citizenship is not a commodity to be displayed
when required and suppressed when convenient.
• Difference between nationality and citizenship: Nationality is with regard to the
race and values of a person, but citizenship involves civil and political rights
guaranteed by a state.
Frivaldo v. COMELEC (1989) – petitioner was naturalized in the US : The will of the people
as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly
believed, as in this case, that the candidate was qualified citizen of the Philippines.
• It was found that petitioner solemnly declared "on oath, that I absolutely and entirely
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state
or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen," meaning
in his case the Republic of the Philippines.
Frivaldo v. COMELEC (1996) [MR] – petitioner was repatriated at 6:00pm; opposition
was proclaimed at 8:30pm : Lack of the citizenship requirement is not a continuing disability
or disqualification to run for and hold public office.
• Frivaldo was already and indubitably a citizen before the opposition was proclaimed,
having taken his oath of allegiance earlier in the afternoon of the same day, then he
should have been the candidate proclaimed as he unquestionably garnered the highest
number of votes in the immediately preceding elections and such oath had already
cured his previous "judicially-declared" alienage.
• Remember that upon taking oath of allegiance, repatriation retroacts to the date of
application, because at the time you wanted to be a Filipino again, you were already
a Filipino before.
Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC (1989) – mayor of Baguio City; Australian passport and marriage
to Australian national : Citizenship is a continuing requirement. Thus, being elected by the
majority of voters does not render the citizenship requirement as a futile technicality.
Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC (1992) [MR] – petitioner applied for reacquisition pursuant to PD
725 : In the absence of any official action or approval by the proper authorities, a mere
application for repatriation, does not, and cannot, amount to an automatic reacquisition of the
applicant's Philippine citizenship.
Aznar v. Osmeña (1990) – provincial governor of Cebu; allegedly American : Philippine
courts are only allowed to determine who are Filipino citizens and who are not.
• 2 instances when a petition for disqualification may be filed:
o Before election – may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that
any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74
hereof is false.
§ The petition may be filed at any time within 25 days from the
time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be
decided, after the notice and hearing, within 15 days before the
election.
o After election – any voter contesting the election of any Member of the
Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a
sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission.
41
§ Must be filed within 10 days after the proclamation of the results
of the election.
Mercado v. Manzano (1999) – rival candidates for mayor of Makati : Dual citizenship is not
a ground for disqualification from running for any elective local position.
• Dual citizenship – arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different
laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the
said states. It is involuntary.
1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which
follow the principle of jus soli;
2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the
laws of their father’s country such children are citizens of that country; and
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are
considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have
renounced Philippine citizenship.
• Dual allegiance – the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some
positive act, loyalty to two or more states. It is the result of an individual’s volition.
• Furthermore, the filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his
American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a
dual citizen.
Tabasa v. CA (2006) – petitioner’s father became a naturalized citizen of the United States
when petitioner was 7 years old : To claim the benefit of RA 8171 (Repatriation of Filipino
Women or natural-Filipinos including their minor children), the children must be of minor age
at the time the petition for repatriation is filed by the parent.
• RA 8171 applies to 2 classes of persons:
1. Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to
aliens; and
2. Natural-born Filipinos, including their minor children, who lost their
Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity.
• 3 Modes of Reacquiring Citizenship:
1. Naturalization, whether judicial or administrative;
2. RA 8171 or RA 9225 – Repatriation; and
3. Direct Act of Congress.
Maquiling v. COMELEC (2013) – use of foreign passport : After reacquiring Philippine
citizenship, one is deemed to be solely a Filipino citizen. This legal presumption, however, is
open to attack when, after renouncing the foreign citizenship, the citizen performs positive acts
showing his continued possession of a foreign citizenship.
No Collateral Attack
Vilando v. HRET (2011) – private respondent allegedly born to a Chinese father : The
complete and exclusive power of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) over
cases challenging the ineligibility on the ground of lack of citizenship does not carry with it the
authority to delve into the legality of the judgment of naturalization in the pursuit of
disqualifying a member of the House of Representatives.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

SECTION 2. NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS ARE THOSE WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES
FROM BIRTH WITHOUT HAVING TO PERFORM ANY ACT TO ACQUIRE OR PERFECT THEIR
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. THOSE WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PARAGRAPH (3), SECTION 1 HEREOF SHALL BE DEEMED NATURAL -BORN CITIZENS.
Bengson v. HRET (2001) – RA 2630 (Repatriation Act) : A natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, after losing the same pursuant to his naturalization in a foreign country, may
reacquire the same natural-born status by virtue of the Repatriation Act.
Cordora v. COMELEC (2009) – RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of
2003) : The twin requirements for dual citizens from birth who desire to run for public office
are:
1. Meet the qualifications laid down by the Constitution and existing laws; and
2. At the time of filing the certificate of candidacy (COC), make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
administer an oath aside from the oath of allegiance prescribed in Section 3 of RA
9225.
David v. Agbay (2015) – miscellaneous lease application; cenro : In RA 9225 (Citizenship
Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003), the reacquisition will apply to those who lost their
Philippine citizenship by virtue of Commonwealth Act No. 63, and retention of Philippines
citizenship applies to future instances; Furthermore, RA 9225 is not a penal law, thus there is
no presumption of innocence; RA 9225 has no retroactive effect.
• Effects of RA 9225:
1. R.A. 9225 amends CA 63 by doing away with the provision in the old law
which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who
become naturalized citizens of other countries and allowing dual
citizenship.
2. For those who were naturalized in a foreign country, they shall be deemed
to have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship which was lost pursuant to
CA 63, under which naturalization in a foreign country is one of the ways
by which Philippine citizenship may be lost.
3. In the case of those who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect,
they shall retain Philippine citizenship despite having acquired foreign
citizenship provided they took the oath of allegiance under the new law.
• Reacquisition – applies to those who lost their Philippine citizenship by virtue of
Commonwealth Act No. 63, and retention of Philippines citizenship applies to future
instances.
• Repatriation – applies to those who lost their citizenship through:
1. Desertion of the armed forces;
2. Services rendered in the armed forces of the allied forces in WWII;
3. Service rendered in the armed forces of the United States;
4. Marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and
5. Political or economic necessity.
• In this case, petitioner failed to prove that he had applied for repatriation before
making the misappropriation in the miscellaneous lease application.
42
Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC (2016) – Grace Poe case : A foundling is presumed to be a
national of the country of birth. Furthermore, foundlings are presumed to be born in the country
where they are found.
SECTION 3. PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED
BY LAW.
SECTION 4. CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES WHO MARRY ALIENS SHALL RETAIN THEIR
CITIZENSHIP, UNLESS BY THEIR ACT OR OMISSION, THEY ARE DEEMED, UNDER THE LAW, TO
HAVE RENOUNCED IT.
Reyes v. COMELEC (2013) – Seeking and Finding the Truth about Regina O. Reyes : If a
party whose citizenship qualification is being assailed contends that RA 9225 does not apply to
her, but subsequently executes an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship only to
comply with the rules, then it is an admission that RA 9225 applies to her.
SECTION 5. DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS INIMICAL TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND
SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW.
AASJS-Calilung v. Datumanong (2007) – constitutionality of RA 9225; dual allegiance :
RA 9225 does not recognize dual allegiance on its face. What it does is allow dual citizenship
to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country.
Ø CA No. 63 Loss or Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship
Ø RA 2630 Repatriation Act
Ø RA 9225 Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
Ø RA 8171 Repatriation of Filipino Women or natural-Filipinos including their minor
children
Ø RA 9139 Acquisition and Naturalization Act – administrative
Ø CA No. 473 Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Naturalization – judicial
ARTICLE V: SUFFRAGE
SECTION 1. SUFFRAGE MAY BE EXERCISED BY ALL CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES NOT
OTHERWISE DISQUALIFIED BY LAW, WHO ARE AT LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND WHO
SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR, AND IN THE PLACE
WHEREIN THEY PROPOSE TO VOTE, FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
ELECTION. NO LITERACY, PROPERTY, OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT SHALL BE
IMPOSED ON THE EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE.
Ø Requisites for suffrage:
1. Citizen of the Philippines;
2. Not otherwise disqualified by law;
3. At least 18 years of age;
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

4. Resident of the Philippines for at least 1 year, and in the place where they propose
to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the election.
SECTION 2. THE CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE A SYSTEM FOR SECURING THE SECRECY AND
SANCTITY OF THE BALLOT AS WELL AS A SYSTEM FOR ABSENTEE VOTING BY QUALIFIED
FILIPINOS ABROAD.
THE CONGRESS SHALL ALSO DESIGN A PROCEDURE FOR THE DISABLED AND THE ILLITERATES
TO VOTE WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF OTHER PERSONS. UNTIL THEN, THEY SHALL BE
ALLOWED TO VOTE UNDER EXISTING LAWS AND SUCH RULES AS THE C OMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS MAY PROMULGATE TO PROTECT THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.
Macalintal v. COMELEC (2003) – RA 9189 (Absentee Voting Law) : Absentee voting is not
contrary to the residency requirement in Art. V Sec. 1 of the Constitution because while such
absentee voter is abroad, he still has a domiciliary legal tie to his residence in the Philippines,
provided he complies with the requirements of the law.
• Under our election laws and the countless pronouncements of the Court pertaining to
elections, an absentee remains attached to his residence in the Philippines as residence
is considered synonymous with domicile.
• The affidavit required in Section 5(d) is not only proof of the intention of the
immigrant or permanent resident to go back and resume residency in the Philippines,
but more significantly, it serves as an explicit expression that he had not in fact
abandoned his domicile of origin.
o The affidavit is required of immigrants and permanent residents abroad
because by their status in their host countries, they are presumed to have
relinquished their intent to return to this country
Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC (2006) – lack of one-year residence requirement; immigrant
: Dual citizens may also be considered as absentee voters, but without the need of establishing
their domicile in the Philippines through positive acts.
• RA 9225 implicitly acknowledges that duals are most likely non-residents, thus grants
the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under R.A. 9189.
• Remember that if you are an immigrant, most likely you will be applying for
citizenship. So if you apply for citizenship, you are disqualified from the Overseas
Voting Act.
o RA 9225 with regard to duals modified RA 9189.
Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC (1989) – 2nd placer : It would be extremely repugnant to the basic
concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired
the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a
constituency, the majority of which have positively declared through their ballots that they do
not choose him.
Romualdez v. RTC (1993) – political necessity; nephew of Imelda Marcos : Petitioner’s
going into self-exile until conditions favorable to them would have somehow stabilized is
understandable, their sudden departure from the country cannot be described as “voluntary,” or
as “abandonment of residence” applying the concept of “domicile by choice.”
• Requisites of domicile by choice:
43
1. Residence or bodily presence in the new locality;
2. Animus manendi – Intention to remain there; and
3. Animus non revertendi – Intention to abandon the old domicile.
Kabataan Party-list v. COMELEC (2015) – NoBioNoBoto Campaign : A law that merely
regulates registration does not necessarily “add” to the requirements exclusively listed in the
1987 Constitution. Thus, a registration requirement that does not rise to the level of a literacy,
property or other substantive requirement cannot be struck down as unconstitutional.
• Qualification – the possession of qualities, properties inherently or legally necessary
to make one eligible for a position or office, or to perform a public duty or function.
• Registration – regulates the exercise of the right to suffrage. It is not a qualification
for such right.
• Although one is deemed to be a “qualified elector,” he must nonetheless still comply
with the registration procedure in order to vote.
Special Registration Before General Elections
Akbayan v. COMELEC (2001) – special registration for elections within the ban period :
Proceeding from the significance of registration as a necessary requisite to the right to vote, the
State undoubtedly, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to safeguard
and regulate the act of voters registration for the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly
and peaceful election, to the incidental yet generally important end.
• If a special voters’ registration is conducted, then the prohibitive period for filing
petitions for exclusion must likewise be adjusted to a later date. If we do not adjust,
then no one can challenge the Voters list since we would already be well within the
100-day prohibitive period provided by RA 8189.
• “Voters would be disenfranchised” – contrary to this, there are regulations for the re-
registration, and voters must qualify for it.
ARTICLE XIII: SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ø Social Justice – Calalang v. Williams – the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the
adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the
competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally,
through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the
exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored
principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
SECTION 1. THE CONGRESS SHALL GIVE HIGHEST PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT OF MEASURES
THAT PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF ALL THE PEOPLE TO HUMAN DIGNITY, REDUCE
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL INEQUALITIES, AND REMOVE CULTURAL INEQUITIES BY
EQUITABLY DIFFUSING WEALTH AND POLITICAL POWER FOR THE COMMON GOOD.
TO THIS END, THE STATE SHALL REGULATE THE ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP, USE, AND
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY AND ITS INCREMENTS.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing (2000) – local hires and foreign
hires : Employees should be given equal pay for work of equal value. “Humane conditions of
work” are not restricted to the physical workplace - the factory, the office or the field - but
include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees.
• The State has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital.
These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest
that labor contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must yield to the
common good.
SECTION 2. THE PROMOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE SHALL INCLUDE THE COMMITMENT TO
CREATE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES BASED ON FREEDOM OF INITIATIVE AND SELF-RELIANCE .
LABOR
SECTION 3. THE STATE SHALL AFFORD FULL PROTECTION TO LABOR, LOCAL AND OVERSEAS,
ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED, AND PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT AND EQUALITY OF
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL.
IT SHALL GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS OF ALL WORKERS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATIONS, AND PEACEFUL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING THE
RIGHT TO STRIKE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SECURITY OF
TENURE, HUMANE CONDITIONS OF WORK, AND A LIVING WAGE. THEY SHALL ALSO
PARTICIPATE IN POLICY AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AFFECTING THEIR RIGHTS AND
BENEFITS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE THE PRINCIPLE OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN WORKERS
AND EMPLOYERS AND THE PREFERENTIAL USE OF VOLUNTARY MODES IN SETTLING DISPUTES,
INCLUDING CONCILIATION, AND SHALL ENFORCE THEIR MUTUAL COMPLIANCE THEREWITH TO
FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PEACE.
THE STATE SHALL REGULATE THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS,
RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT OF LABOR TO ITS JUST SHARE IN THE FRUITS OF PRODUCTION AND
THE RIGHT OF ENTERPRISES TO REASONABLE RETURNS TO INVESTMENTS, AND TO EXPANSION
AND GROWTH.
Eagle Security v. NLRC (1989) – contract for security services; solidary liability;
subcontractor : The Labor Code mandates a joint and several liability in cases of contractors
(direct employer) and principals (indirect employer) in order to assure compliance of the
provisions therein including the statutory minimum wage.
Agabon v. NLRC (2004) – abandonment of work; substantive and procedural due process
: Dismissal by an employer for a just or authorized cause, but without complying with procedural
due process, does not invalidate the dismissal, but holds the employer liable for damages.
• Twin-requirements of due process in Labor cases:
1. Substantive due process – dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause;
and
44
§ Just cause – imputable to the employee (ex. serious misconduct,
gross and habitual neglect, etc.)
§ Authorized cause – management prerogative of the employer (ex.
retrenchment, serious loss, etc.)
2. Procedural due process – notice and opportunity to be heard.
§ Twin-notice rule:
1. Notice of cause for termination; and
2. Notice of decision to terminate.
The Province of Camarines Norte v. Gonzales (2013) – provincial administrator changed
to non-career by Local Government Code (LGC) : Flowing from the legislative power to
create public offices is the power to abolish and modify them to meet the demands of society.
When done in good faith, these acts would not violate a public officer’s security of tenure, even
if they result in his removal from office or the shortening of his term.
• The LGC made the provincial administrator position co-terminous with its appointing
authority, reclassifying it as a non-career service position that is primarily
confidential.
• The concept of security of tenure, however, operates under a different rule for
primarily confidential employees due to the nature of a “primarily confidential”
position.
• In the case of Gonzales, where the trust and confidence has been irretrievably
“eroded”, Gov. Pimentel only exercised his discretion when he decided that he could
no longer entrust his confidence in Gonzales.
Abbott Laboratories v. Alcaraz (2013) – probationary employee : When a valid cause for
termination exists, the procedural infirmity attending the termination only warrants the payment
of nominal damages. In the assailed Decision, the Court actually extended the application of the
Agabon and Jaka rulings to breaches of company procedure, notwithstanding the employer’s
compliance with the statutory requirements under the Labor Code.
• Jaka Doctrine – provides for P50,000 nominal damages:
o If the dismissal is baased on a just cause, but the employer failed to comply
with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should be
tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act
imputable to the employee.
o If the dismissal is based on an authorized cause, but the employer failed to
comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because
the dismissal was initiated by the employer’s exercise of his management
prerogative.
Labor Cases; Due Process
Substantive Due Procedural Due
Case Doctrine Valid Dismissal
Process Process
Rule Ö Ö Yes
No, reinstate +
Rule X Ö
backwages.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

Yes, with indemnity
Agabon Just Cause Ö X or P30,000 nominal
damages.
Yes, with indemnity
Jaka Authorized Cause Ö X or P50,000 nominal
damages.
AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM
SECTION 4. THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW, UNDERTAKE AN AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM
FOUNDED ON THE RIGHT OF FARMERS AND REGULAR FARMWORKERS WHO ARE LANDLESS, TO
OWN DIRECTLY OR COLLECTIVELY THE LANDS THEY TILL OR, IN THE CASE OF OTHER
FARMWORKERS , TO RECEIVE A JUST SHARE OF THE FRUITS THEREOF. T O THIS END, THE STATE
SHALL ENCOURAGE AND UNDERTAKE THE JUST DISTRIBUTION OF ALL AGRICULTURAL LANDS,
SUBJECT TO SUCH PRIORITIES AND REASONABLE RETENTION LIMITS AS THE CONGRESS MAY
PRESCRIBE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ECOLOGICAL, DEVELOPMENTAL, OR EQUITY
CONSIDERATIONS, AND SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION. IN DETERMINING
RETENTION LIMITS, THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE RIGHT OF SMALL LANDOWNERS . THE
STATE SHALL FURTHER PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR VOLUNTARY LAND-SHARING.
Assn. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform (1989) – Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law : The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is
required is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession of the said excess and all
beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary.
• Where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of
whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is
definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just
compensation is imperative.
• Smaller retention limits (landowner may retain up to 5 hectares, and for each child
who would be able to manage the land, there is a retention limit of 3 hectares per
child).
PROBLEM: Stock bonds of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) would be good as cash?
• Yes. What is important is there is just compensation in terms of expropriation
proceedings.
Luz Farms v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform (1990) – livestock and poultry – The transcripts of
the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the word
"agricultural," clearly show that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to
include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian
reform program of the Government.
• The Committee adopted the definition of "agricultural land" as defined under Section
166 of R.A. 3844 – any growth, including but not limited to crop lands, saltbeds,
fishponds, idle and abandoned land.
Hacienda Luisita v. PARC (2011) – stock distribution plan : The wording of the provision
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is unequivocal––the farmers and regular
farmworkers have a right to own directly or collectively (indirectly) the lands they till.
45
• Direct transfer – the most commonly used method by DAR and widely accepted.
• Indirect transfer – through collective ownership of the agricultural land is the
alternative to direct ownership of agricultural land by individual farmers.
o 2 ways of collective ownership:
1. Sec. 29 allows workers’ cooperatives or associations to
collectively own the land; while the
2. 2nd paragraph of Sec. 31 allows corporations or associations to
own agricultural land with the farmers becoming stockholders or
members.
• RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) – agrarian reform – the
redistribution of lands ... to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless ... to
lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to
the physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profit sharing, labor
administration and the distribution of shares of stock which will allow beneficiaries
to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work.
SECTION 5. THE STATE SHALL RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF FARMERS, FARMWORKERS, AND
LANDOWNERS, AS WELL AS COOPERATIVES, AND OTHER INDEPENDENT FARMERS'
ORGANIZATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING , ORGANIZATION, AND MANAGEMENT OF
THE PROGRAM , AND SHALL PROVIDE SUPPORT TO AGRICULTURE THROUGH APPROPRIATE
TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH , AND ADEQUATE FINANCIAL, PRODUCTION, MARKETING, AND
OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES.
SECTION 6. THE STATE SHALL APPLY THE PRINCIPLES OF AGRARIAN REFORM OR
STEWARDSHIP , WHENEVER APPLICABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE DISPOSITION OR
UTILIZATION OF OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
UNDER LEASE OR CONCESSION SUITABLE TO AGRICULTURE, SUBJECT TO PRIOR RIGHTS,
HOMESTEAD RIGHTS OF SMALL SETTLERS, AND THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES TO
THEIR ANCESTRAL LANDS .
THE STATE MAY RESETTLE LANDLESS FARMERS AND FARMWORKERS IN ITS OWN
AGRICULTURAL ESTATES WHICH SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THEM IN THE MANNER PROVIDED
BY LAW.
SECTION 7. THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF SUBSISTENCE FISHERMEN, ESPECIALLY
OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES, TO THE PREFERENTIAL USE OF THE COMMUNAL MARINE AND FISHING
RESOURCES, BOTH INLAND AND OFFSHORE. IT SHALL PROVIDE SUPPORT TO SUCH FISHERMEN
THROUGH APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH, ADEQUATE FINANCIAL, PRODUCTION,
AND MARKETING ASSISTANCE, AND OTHER SERVICES. THE STATE SHALL ALSO PROTECT ,
DEVELOP, AND CONSERVE SUCH RESOURCES. THE PROTECTION SHALL EXTEND TO OFFSHORE
FISHING GROUNDS OF SUBSISTENCE FISHERMEN AGAINST FOREIGN INTRUSION. FISHWORKERS
SHALL RECEIVE A JUST SHARE FROM THEIR LABOR IN THE UTILIZATION OF MARINE AND
FISHING RESOURCES.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

SECTION 8. THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO LANDOWNERS TO INVEST THE
PROCEEDS OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIALIZATION,
EMPLOYMENT CREATION, AND PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES. FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS USED AS PAYMENT FOR THEIR LANDS SHALL BE HONORED AS EQUITY IN
ENTERPRISES OF THEIR CHOICE .
URBAN LAND REFORM AND HOUSING
SECTION 9. THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW, AND FOR THE COMMON GOOD, UNDERTAKE, IN
COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR, A CONTINUING PROGRAM OF URBAN LAND REFORM
AND HOUSING WHICH WILL MAKE AVAILABLE AT AFFORDABLE COST, DECENT HOUSING AND
BASIC SERVICES TO UNDER- PRIVILEGED AND HOMELESS CITIZENS IN URBAN CENTERS AND
RESETTLEMENT AREAS. IT SHALL ALSO PROMOTE ADEQUATE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
TO SUCH CITIZENS. IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH PROGRAM THE STATE SHALL RESPECT
THE RIGHTS OF SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS.
Dee v. CA (2000) – PD 1517 (Urban Land Reform Law) tenant’s right of first refusal to
purchase land : The factual determination of non-payment of rent is needed to establish
petitioners' status as tenants.
• PD 1517 provided that pre-emptive rights will be granted to:
1. Legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for 10 years or more; and
2. Residents who have legally occupied the land by contract for the last 10
years.”
• Petitioners herein failed to show that they qualify for the benefits of PD 1517.
Reyes v. NHA (2003) – public purpose abandoned; reconveyance : Whatever may be
beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of “public use.”
• The expropriation of private property for the purpose of socialized housing for the
marginalized sector is in furtherance of the social justice provision under Section 1,
Article XIII of the Constitution.
• Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan – when land has been acquired for public use in
fee simple unconditionally, either by the exercise of eminent domain or by purchase,
the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public use may be abandoned,
or the land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or
title acquired, or any reversion to the former owner.
o Except when such condition was stipulated.
SECTION 10. URBAN OR RURAL POOR DWELLERS SHALL NOT BE EVICTED NOR THEIR
DWELLING DEMOLISHED, EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IN A JUST AND HUMANE
MANNER.
NO RESETTLEMENT OF URBAN OR RURAL DWELLERS SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT
ADEQUATE CONSULTATION WITH THEM AND THE COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY ARE TO BE
RELOCATED.
46
Macasiano v. NHA (1993) – RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) : The
burden is not with the private landowner, but with the national and/or local government. There
must be a plan by the government to be able to give affordable housing to the homeless. It does
not encourage taking over private property, but that demolitions must be more humane.
• There should be no police officers within the demolition site, but be within a limited
area near the site in order to react when violence occurs.
• Sec. 28 provides for eviction and demolition. (No demolition unless they can be
relocated)
• Sec. 44 provides for the moratorium of 3 years with respect to program beneficiaries.
• Petitioner herein has no standing because was not authorized to operate any
demolition, but only as a consultant.
People v. Leachon (1998) – respondent judge motu proprio dismissed the case on the
ground that PD 772 had been repealed by Art. XIII sec. 9 and 10 of the Constitution :
Presidential Decree No. 772, otherwise known as the Anti-Squatting Law, enjoys this
presumption of constitutionality. At the time the respondent Judge rendered the questioned
Decision and issued the orders of dismissal in 1993, Presidential Decree No. 772, Anti-Squatting
Law, was still effective.
• However, the case was dismissed pursuant to RA 8368 (Act Repealing PD 772) – "all
pending cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be dismissed
upon the effectivity of this Act."
• Furthermore, the judge did not even give the prosecution to be able to refute the
alleged unconstitutionality of the Anti-Squatting Law.
HEALTH
SECTION 11. THE STATE SHALL ADOPT AN INTEGRATED AND COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO
HEALTH DEVELOPMENT WHICH SHALL ENDEAVOR TO MAKE ESSENTIAL GOODS, HEALTH AND
OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES AVAILABLE TO ALL THE PEOPLE AT AFFORDABLE COST. THERE SHALL
BE PRIORITY FOR THE NEEDS OF THE UNDER-PRIVILEGED, SICK, ELDERLY, DISABLED, WOMEN,
AND CHILDREN. THE STATE SHALL ENDEAVOR TO PROVIDE FREE MEDICAL CARE TO PAUPERS.
SECTION 12. THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE FOOD AND DRUG
REGULATORY SYSTEM AND UNDERTAKE APPROPRIATE HEALTH, MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT,
AND RESEARCH, RESPONSIVE TO THE COUNTRY'S HEALTH NEEDS AND PROBLEMS.
SECTION 13. THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL AGENCY FOR DISABLED PERSON FOR
THEIR REHABILITATION, SELF-DEVELOPMENT, AND SELF-RELIANCE, AND THEIR INTEGRATION
INTO THE MAINSTREAM OF SOCIETY.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

WOMEN
SECTION 14. THE STATE SHALL PROTECT WORKING WOMEN BY PROVIDING SAFE AND
HEALTHFUL WORKING CONDITIONS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THEIR MATERNAL FUNCTIONS,
AND SUCH FACILITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT WILL ENHANCE THEIR WELFARE AND ENABLE
THEM TO REALIZE THEIR FULL POTENTIAL IN THE SERVICE OF THE NATION.
ROLE AND RIGHTS OF PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS
SECTION 15. THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE ROLE OF INDEPENDENT PEOPLE'S
ORGANIZATIONS TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE TO PURSUE AND PROTECT, WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC
FRAMEWORK, THEIR LEGITIMATE AND COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND ASPIRATIONS THROUGH
PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS.
PEOPLE'S ORGANIZATIONS ARE BONA FIDE ASSOCIATIONS OF CITIZENS WITH DEMONSTRATED
CAPACITY TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WITH IDENTIFIABLE LEADERSHIP,
MEMBERSHIP, AND STRUCTURE.
SECTION 16. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS TO EFFECTIVE AND
REASONABLE PARTICIPATION AT ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC
DECISION-MAKING SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED. THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW, FACILITATE THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF ADEQUATE CONSULTATION MECHANISMS.
HUMAN RIGHTS
SECTION 17. (1) THERE IS HEREBY CREATED AN INDEPENDENT OFFICE CALLED THE
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
(2) THE COMMISSION SHALL BE COMPOSED OF A CHAIRMAN AND FOUR MEMBERS WHO MUST
BE NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND A MAJORITY OF WHOM SHALL BE
MEMBERS OF THE B AR. THE TERM OF OFFICE AND OTHER QUALIFICATIONS AND DISABILITIES
OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
(3) UNTIL THIS COMMISSION IS CONSTITUTED, THE EXISTING PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE ON
HUMAN RIGHTS SHALL CONTINUE TO EXERCISE ITS PRESENT FUNCTIONS AND POWERS.
(4) THE APPROVED ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE
AUTOMATICALLY AND REGULARLY RELEASED.
CHR Employees v. CHR (2006) – CHR reorganization and upgrade in salary levels; fiscal
autonomy : The Commission on Human Rights has no fiscal autonomy, its charter only says
“automatically and regularly released,” an aspect of fiscal autonomy. However, there is no basis
in the Constitution or in law that CHR enjoys fiscal autonomy.
• An executive order (EO) breathed life into the CHR, not the 1987 Constitution.
o It is constitutionally created, but not at par with the other constitutional
commissions.
47
• In the EO, there is no provision giving it fiscal autonomy.
• Even if the CHR has fiscal autonomy, it still has to get clearance from the Department
of Budget Management (DBM) if it would like to restructure because of the prevailing
Salary Standardization Law (SSL). Even the judiciary would have to coordinate with
the DBM.
SECTION 18. THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWERS
AND FUNCTIONS:
(1) INVESTIGATE, ON ITS OWN OR ON COMPLAINT BY ANY PARTY, ALL FORMS OF HUMAN
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS INVOLVING CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS ;
(2) ADOPT ITS OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES AND RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND CITE FOR
CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF COURT ;
(3) PROVIDE APPROPRIATE LEGAL MEASURES FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL
PERSONS WITHIN THE PHILIPPINES, AS WELL AS FILIPINOS RESIDING ABROAD, AND PROVIDE
FOR PREVENTIVE MEASURES AND LEGAL AID SERVICES TO THE UNDER-PRIVILEGED WHOSE
HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED OR NEED PROTECTION;
(4) EXERCISE VISITORIAL POWERS OVER JAILS, PRISONS, OR DETENTION FACILITIES;
(5) ESTABLISH A CONTINUING PROGRAM OF RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND INFORMATION TO
ENHANCE RESPECT FOR THE PRIMACY OF HUMAN RIGHTS;
(6) RECOMMEND TO CONGRESS EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS AND TO
PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, OR THEIR
FAMILIES;
(7) MONITOR THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT'S COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL TREATY
OBLIGATIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS;
(8) G RANT IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION TO ANY PERSON WHOSE TESTIMONY OR WHOSE
POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTS OR OTHER EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT TO
DETERMINE THE TRUTH IN ANY INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY IT OR UNDER ITS AUTHORITY;
(9) REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE OF ANY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU, OFFICE, OR AGENCY IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF ITS FUNCTIONS;
(10) APPOINT ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; AND
(11) PERFORM SUCH OTHER DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
Ø CHR is the watchdog of the government.
Ø Limited to investigating civil and political rights only, such as those provided in the Bill of
Rights.
o Art XIII consists of social, economic and cultural rights. You need government
institutions. It has to be given resources by the government.
Cariño v. CHR (1991) – CHR ordered sec. of education to submit documents regarding
the dismissal of public teachers : CHR cannot adjudicate. It is merely an investigatory body,
and does not have quasi-judicial functions.
PROBLEM: Can CHR compel agencies to give information?
• Yes, but it cannot say whether there is a human rights violation or not. Report merely
recommendatory, but cases will still have to be filed in court, or in the office of the
prosecutor.
• “Human rights violation” is descriptive.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

• RA 7438 (Rights Under Custodial Investigation) – any person arrested or detained or
under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by … any national non-
governmental organization (NGO) duly accredited by the CHR.
Simon v. CHR (1994) – demolition of vendors by then QC Mayor Simon; cease and desist
order : CHR has no injunctive power (to issue a cease and desist order). Furthermore, CHR
cannot cite a person in contempt because they have no injunctive or adjudicatory function.
• CHR can filed with the court to hold someone in contempt.
PROBLEM: If CHR asks a police officer to investigate, but the officer ignores, can CHR cite
officer in contempt?
• Yes, but it has to go through judicial process (file with the court).
SECTION 19. THE CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE FOR OTHER CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN
RIGHTS THAT SHOULD FALL WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE C OMMISSION, TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS.
ARTICLE XIV: EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS
EDUCATION
SECTION 1. THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHT OF ALL CITIZENS TO
QUALITY EDUCATION AT ALL LEVELS, AND SHALL TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO MAKE SUCH
EDUCATION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.
Natural and Primary Right of Parents
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) – act prohibiting teaching of foreign language unless child
successfully passed the 8th grade : No emergency has arisen which renders knowledge by a
child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the
consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed.
• Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his
children education suitable to their station in life, and nearly all the States, including
Nebraska, enforce this obligation by compulsory laws.
• Lawful subject, but the means adopted exceed the limitations upon the power of the
State and conflict with rights assured to plaintiff in error.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) – Compulsory Education Act of Oregon; required public
school : The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his
destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional
obligations.
• Petitioners, although corporations, have business and property for which they claim
protection.
• Truax v. Raich – injunctions have issued to protect business enterprises against
interference with the freedom of patrons or customers.
48
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – Amish; Compulsory School Attendance Law : Even the power
of the State to impose reasonable regulations for the control of basic education must yield to the
right of parents to provide an equivalent education.
• The goal of education be viewed as the preparation of the child for life in the separated
agrarian community that is the keystone of the Amish faith.
o What this record shows is that they are opposed to conventional formal
education of the type provided by a certified high school because it comes
at the child's crucial adolescent period of religious development.
• There is no specific evidence of the loss of Amish adherents by attrition, nor is there
any showing that, upon leaving the Amish community, Amish children, with their
practical agricultural training and habits of industry and self-reliance, would become
burdens on society because of educational shortcomings.
Ginsberg v. New York (1968) – New York Penal Law prohibiting sale to minors under 17
years of age material defined to be obscene on the basis of its appeal to them, regardless of
its appeal to adults : Two interests justify the limitations in § 484-h upon the availability of sex
material to minors under 17:
1. Subsection 1(f)(ii) of § 484-h expressly recognizes the parental role in assessing sex-
related material harmful to minors according "to prevailing standards in the adult
community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors."
2. The prohibition against sales to minors does not bar parents who so desire from
purchasing the magazines for their children.
Quality and Accessibility of Educational System
DECS v. San Diego – failed NMAT 5 times : The subject of the challenged regulation is
certainly within the ambit of the police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the
State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients
may unwarily entrust their lives and health.
• Substantial distinction: The medical profession directly affects the very lives of the
people, unlike other careers which, for this reason, do not require more vigilant
regulation.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

SECTION 2. THE STATE SHALL:
(1) ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, AND SUPPORT A COMPLETE, ADEQUATE, AND INTEGRATED SYSTEM
OF EDUCATION RELEVANT TO THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE AND SOCIETY;
(2) ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN, A SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE ELEMENTARY
AND HIGH SCHOOL LEVELS. WITHOUT LIMITING THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF PARENTS TO REAR
THEIR CHILDREN, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IS COMPULSORY FOR ALL CHILDREN OF SCHOOL
AGE;
(3) ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF SCHOLARSHIP GRANTS, STUDENT LOAN
PROGRAMS , SUBSIDIES, AND OTHER INCENTIVES WHICH SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO DESERVING
STUDENTS IN BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS, ESPECIALLY TO THE UNDER-PRIVILEGED;
(4) ENCOURAGE NON-FORMAL, INFORMAL, AND INDIGENOUS LEARNING SYSTEMS, AS WELL AS
SELF- LEARNING, INDEPENDENT, AND OUT -OF-SCHOOL STUDY PROGRAMS PARTICULARLY
THOSE THAT RESPOND TO COMMUNITY NEEDS; AND
(5) PROVIDE ADULT CITIZENS, THE DISABLED, AND OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTH WITH TRAINING IN
CIVICS, VOCATIONAL EFFICIENCY , AND OTHER SKILLS.
SECTION 3. (1) ALL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SHALL INCLUDE THE STUDY OF THE
CONSTITUTION AS PART OF THE CURRICULA.
(2) THEY SHALL INCULCATE PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM, FOSTER LOVE OF HUMANITY,
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, APPRECIATION OF THE ROLE OF NATIONAL HEROES IN THE
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTRY, TEACH THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF
CITIZENSHIP, STRENGTHEN ETHICAL AND SPIRITUAL VALUES, DEVELOP MORAL CHARACTER
AND PERSONAL DISCIPLINE, ENCOURAGE CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING, BROADEN
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE, AND PROMOTE VOCATIONAL EFFICIENCY.
(3) AT THE OPTION EXPRESSED IN WRITING BY THE PARENTS OR GUARDIANS, RELIGION SHALL
BE ALLOWED TO BE TAUGHT TO THEIR CHILDREN OR WARDS IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND
HIGH SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGULAR CLASS HOURS BY INSTRUCTORS DESIGNATED OR
APPROVED BY THE RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES OF THE RELIGION TO WHICH THE CHILDREN OR
WARDS BELONG, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT.
Duty of Institutions
Miriam College v. CA (2000) – obscene publication; Miriam College standards : The power
of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its power to suspend or expel. Thus, Miriam College
has the authority to investigate the case instead of the DECS.
• Institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide
for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside
coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for
some restraint.
• Academic freedom includes:
1. Who may teach;
2. What may be taught;
3. How it shall be taught; and
49
4. Whom may be admitted to study.
• The right of the school to discipline its students is at once apparent in the third
freedom, i.e., "how it shall be taught."
SECTION 4. (1) THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE COMPLEMENTARY ROLES OF PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AND SHALL EXERCISE REASONABLE
SUPERVISION AND REGULATION OF ALL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
(2) EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, OTHER THAN THOSE ESTABLISHED BY RELIGIOUS GROUPS
AND MISSION BOARDS, SHALL BE OWNED SOLELY BY CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES OR
CORPORATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS AT LEAST SIXTY PER CENTUM OF THE CAPITAL OF WHICH IS
OWNED BY SUCH CITIZENS. THE CONGRESS MAY , HOWEVER, REQUIRE INCREASED FILIPINO
EQUITY PARTICIPATION IN ALL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
THE CONTROL AND ADMINISTRATION OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SHALL BE VESTED IN
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES.
NO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED EXCLUSIVELY FOR ALIENS AND NO
GROUP OF ALIENS SHALL COMPRISE MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF THE ENROLLMENT IN ANY
SCHOOL. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO SCHOOLS ESTABLISHED
FOR FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC PERSONNEL AND THEIR DEPENDENTS AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE
PROVIDED BY LAW, FOR OTHER FOREIGN TEMPORARY RESIDENTS.
(3) ALL REVENUES AND ASSETS OF NON-STOCK, NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
USED ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY, AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES SHALL BE
EXEMPT FROM TAXES AND DUTIES. UPON THE DISSOLUTION OR CESSATION OF THE CORPORATE
EXISTENCE OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS, THEIR ASSETS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED BY LAW.
PROPRIETARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THOSE COOPERATIVELY OWNED, MAY
LIKEWISE BE ENTITLED TO SUCH EXEMPTIONS, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS PROVIDED BY
LAW, INCLUDING RESTRICTIONS ON DIVIDENDS AND PROVISIONS FOR REINVESTMENT.
(4) SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, ALL GRANTS, ENDOWMENTS, DONATIONS,
OR CONTRIBUTIONS USED ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY, AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATIONAL
PURPOSES SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAX .
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW

SECTION 5. (1) THE STATE SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT REGIONAL AND SECTORAL NEEDS AND
CONDITIONS AND SHALL ENCOURAGE LOCAL PLANNING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
EDUCATIONAL POLICIES AND PROGRAMS .
PROBLEM: Does a professor have academic freedom?
(2) A CADEMIC FREEDOM SHALL BE ENJOYED IN ALL INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING.
(3) EVERY CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT TO SELECT A PROFESSION OR COURSE OF STUDY, SUBJECT TO
FAIR, REASONABLE, AND EQUITABLE ADMISSION AND ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS.
(4) THE STATE SHALL ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF TEACHERS TO PROFESSIONAL ADVANCEMENT.
NON- TEACHING ACADEMIC AND NON-ACADEMIC PERSONNEL SHALL ENJOY THE PROTECTION
OF THE STATE.
(5) THE STATE SHALL ASSIGN THE HIGHEST BUDGETARY PRIORITY TO EDUCATION AND
ENSURE THAT TEACHING WILL ATTRACT AND RETAIN ITS RIGHTFUL SHARE OF THE BEST
AVAILABLE TALENTS THROUGH ADEQUATE REMUNERATION AND OTHER MEANS OF JOB
SATISFACTION AND FULFILLMENT.
Academic Freedom of “Institutions of Higher Learning”
Garcia v. Faculty Admission (1975) – Loyola School of Theology : The Loyola School of
Theology is a seminary for the priesthood. Even assuming arguendo that she is qualified to
SECTION 7. FOR PURPOSES OF COMMUNICATION AND INSTRUCTION, THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
study for the priesthood, there is still no duty on the part of respondent to admit her to said
studies, since the school has clearly the discretion to turn down even qualified applicants due
to limitations of space, facilities, professors and optimum classroom size and component
considerations."
• Institutions of Higher Learning academic freedom:
1. It decides for itself its aims and objectives and how best to attain them.
2. It is free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the
overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.
3. It has a wide sphere of autonomy certainly extending to the choice of
students.
USC v. CA (1988) – conferment of Latin honors : Schools of learning are given ample
discretion to formulate rules and guidelines in the granting of honors for purposes of graduation.
• Its discretion on this academic matter may not be disturbed much less controlled by
the courts unless there is grave abuse of discretion in its exercise.
International School of Manila v. International School Alliance of Educators (2014) –
professional growth plan : The prerogative of a school to provide standards for its teachers and
to determine whether these standards have been met is in accordance with academic freedom,
which gives the educational institution the right to choose who should teach.
• Furthermore, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provided that "All faculty
members must meet the high standard of performance expected by the SCHOOL and
abide by all its policies, procedures and contractual terms."
• The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply because
it is committed by the underprivileged.
50
• Standards must be clear to the person, considering she has security of tenure. It was
clear in this case.
• Yes. However, the schools may limit such provided that the limitations and standards
are clearly conveyed to the professor.
• In Ateneo Law School, the only directives are to “keep the standards of the Ateneo
Law Schoo.” The professors are evaluated by the forms answered by the students,
there are no observations conducted.
LANGUAGE
SECTION 6. THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE OF THE PHILIPPINES IS FILIPINO. AS IT EVOLVES, IT
SHALL BE FURTHER DEVELOPED AND ENRICHED ON THE BASIS OF EXISTING PHILIPPINE AND
OTHER LANGUAGES.
SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF LAW AND AS THE CONGRESS MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE, THE
GOVERNMENT SHALL TAKE STEPS TO INITIATE AND SUSTAIN THE USE OF FILIPINO AS A
MEDIUM OF OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION AND AS LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION IN THE
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.
OF THE PHILIPPINES ARE FILIPINO AND, UNTIL OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, ENGLISH .
THE REGIONAL LANGUAGES ARE THE AUXILIARY OFFICIAL LANGUAGES IN THE REGIONS AND
SHALL SERVE AS AUXILIARY MEDIA OF INSTRUCTION THEREIN.
SPANISH AND ARABIC SHALL BE PROMOTED ON A VOLUNTARY AND OPTIONAL BASIS.
SECTION 8. THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL BE PROMULGATED IN FILIPINO AND ENGLISH AND
SHALL BE TRANSLATED INTO MAJOR REGIONAL LANGUAGES, ARABIC, AND SPANISH.
SECTION 9. THE CONGRESS SHALL ESTABLISH A NATIONAL LANGUAGE COMMISSION
COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIOUS REGIONS AND DISCIPLINES WHICH SHALL
UNDERTAKE, COORDINATE, AND PROMOTE RESEARCHES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT,
PROPAGATION, AND PRESERVATION OF FILIPINO AND OTHER LANGUAGES.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SECTION 10. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ARE ESSENTIAL FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PROGRESS . THE STATE SHALL GIVE PRIORITY TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INVENTION,
INNOVATION, AND THEIR UTILIZATION; AND TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION,
TRAINING, AND SERVICES. IT SHALL SUPPORT INDIGENOUS, APPROPRIATE, AND SELF-RELIANT
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES, AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE COUNTRY'S
PRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS AND NATIONAL LIFE.
YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW
SECTION 11. THE CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE FOR INCENTIVES, INCLUDING TAX DEDUCTIONS,
TO ENCOURAGE PRIVATE PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAMS OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH . SCHOLARSHIPS, GRANTS-IN-AID, OR OTHER FORMS OF INCENTIVES SHALL BE
PROVIDED TO DESERVING SCIENCE STUDENTS, RESEARCHERS, SCIENTISTS, INVENTORS,
TECHNOLOGISTS, AND SPECIALLY GIFTED CITIZENS.
SPORTS
SECTION 19. (1) THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND ENCOURAGE SPORTS
PROGRAMS , LEAGUE COMPETITIONS, AND AMATEUR SPORTS, INCLUDING TRAINING FOR
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS, TO FOSTER SELF-DISCIPLINE, TEAMWORK, AND EXCELLENCE
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HEALTHY AND ALERT CITIZENRY.

SECTION 12. THE STATE SHALL REGULATE THE TRANSFER AND PROMOTE THE ADAPTATION OF (2) ALL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SHALL UNDERTAKE REGULAR SPORTS ACTIVITIES
TECHNOLOGY FROM ALL SOURCES FOR THE NATIONAL BENEFIT. IT SHALL ENCOURAGE THE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY IN COOPERATION WITH ATHLETIC CLUBS AND OTHER SECTORS.
WIDEST PARTICIPATION OF PRIVATE GROUPS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE GENERATION AND UTILIZATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

SECTION 13. THE STATE SHALL PROTECT AND SECURE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF SCIENTISTS,
INVENTORS, ARTISTS, AND OTHER GIFTED CITIZENS TO THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
CREATIONS, PARTICULARLY WHEN BENEFICIAL TO THE PEOPLE, FOR SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW.

ARTS AND CULTURE

SECTION 14. THE STATE SHALL FOSTER THE PRESERVATION, ENRICHMENT, AND DYNAMIC
EVOLUTION OF A FILIPINO NATIONAL CULTURE BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF UNITY IN
DIVERSITY IN A CLIMATE OF FREE ARTISTIC AND INTELLECTUAL EXPRESSION.

SECTION 15. ARTS AND LETTERS SHALL ENJOY THE PATRONAGE OF THE STATE. THE STATE
SHALL CONSERVE , PROMOTE, AND POPULARIZE THE NATION'S HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL
HERITAGE AND RESOURCES, AS WELL AS ARTISTIC CREATIONS.

SECTION 16. ALL THE COUNTRY'S ARTISTIC AND HISTORIC WEALTH CONSTITUTES THE
CULTURAL TREASURE OF THE NATION AND SHALL BE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE
WHICH MAY REGULATE ITS DISPOSITION.

SECTION 17. THE STATE SHALL RECOGNIZE, RESPECT, AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES TO PRESERVE AND DEVELOP THEIR CULTURES,
TRADITIONS, AND INSTITUTIONS. IT SHALL CONSIDER THESE RIGHTS IN THE FORMULATION OF
NATIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES.

SECTION 18. (1) THE STATE SHALL ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES
THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE CULTURAL ENTITIES, “THE COURT FEELS THAT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SIMPLY INVOKE THE RIGHT TO QUALITY
SCHOLARSHIPS, GRANTS AND OTHER INCENTIVES, AND COMMUNITY CULTURAL CENTERS, AND EDUCATION AS A GUARANTEE OF THE CONSTITUTION: ONE MUST SHOW THAT HE IS ENTITLED
OTHER PUBLIC VENUES. TO IT BECAUSE OF HIS PREPARATION AND PROMISE.”

(2) THE STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT RESEARCHES AND STUDIES ON THE ARTS J. CRUZ
AND CULTURE. DECS V. SAN DIEGO, G.R. NO. 89572,
DECEMBER 21, 1989
51 YAP, K. | ATENEO LAW